Has anyone been keeping up with the Zimmerman trial?

[ABQCOWBOY]

1st Degree Murder:

Prosecution must show the defendant's specific intent to kill or show premeditation. If a person points a gun at another person and specifically takes aim and fires, that is considered premeditation. If a person just fires wildly or while in a struggle, that is not premeditation.

Penalty for this under Florida Law: Maxiimum is the Death Penalty. Minimum is Life in Prison without the possibility of parole.

2nd Degree Murder:

Prosecution must show that a defendant acted with a conscious disregard for another person's life. Premeditation does not have to be proven but a murder of opportunity could fall under this charge because while a person may not have planned a murder, a person can still consciously disregard another person's life and use the opportunity to murder. However, under Florida Law, if 2nd Degree Murder is committed with a firearm, that changes everything as far as penalty goes.

Penalty for 2nd Degree Murder with use of a Firearm Under Florida Law: Maximum is Life in Prision. Minimum is 25 years .

Manslaughter - There are two types in Florida (Voluntary and Involuntary):

Prosecution must show the killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification. In cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder. Manslaughter is a felony of the second degree.

With respects to Voluntary Manslaughter, an example might be the murder of a person while in a fit of rage. Perhaps a cheating spouse caught in the act or a parent who might kill a person for hitting their child. Basically, blind rage.

With respects to Involuntary Manslaughter, an example might be a person who unknowingly kills another person by accident. For example, a person who is speeding and runs over a pedestrian who is in the wrong place at the wrong time or a person who believes a gun to be unloaded and discharges the weapon, resulting in the death of another person.

However, again Florida differentiates Voluntry Manslaughter when committed with a gun.

Penalty for Voluntary Manslaughter (with a firearm), under Florida Law: Maximum is 30 years in Prison, Minimum is 9 3/4 years in Prison.

Penalty for Involuntry Manslaughter (with a firearm), under Florida Law: Maximum is 30 years in Prison, Minimum is 9 3/4 years in Prison.

I honestly don't know why Florida even differentiates between Voluntary and Involuntary Manslaughter. They are essentially the same in terms of sentencing.

It's a big deal to allow the Jury to consider lessor offenses because the penalties for lessor crimes are almost just as sever since we know that Florida doesn't put people to death anymore. What's interesting is that while the Judge will allow the Jury to consider lessor charges, the Jury is not informed of the fact that the lessor charges carry just as stiff a penalty in some cases.

 

[JoeyBoy718]

I don't know the details of the story because I never really care too much about "high profile" cases like this. All I do know is it's scary that this type of thing could probably happen to me.

I live in Florida. I like taking walks at night through my neighborhood because I find it relaxing--there are no people, it's not so hot outside, I like the dark, and I can listen to my music. Usually when I walk after 10 pm I always get stopped by police. I find it very annoying because this is my "me time" but I also understand that the cops are just doing their jobs. All in all, I just tell them my address and that I'm just going for a nightly stroll and they let me be on my way. The cops are totally respectful. I'm just "annoyed" because my me time is being interrupted.

Now, let's say one night I'm on one of my nightly strolls and a concerned citizens spots me. If they want to call the police and the police come and question me, as usual, that's fine and totally their right. However, if they start following me for blocks and blocks, you best believe I'm going to become annoyed. I don't know who they are. They could be some crack head trying to rob me for all I know. If they follow me for a while and eventually run up on me, you best believe I'm going to lay into them with me fists.

Now, tell me. Based on the scenario I just described, would any of you not react the way I did? Would I deserve to get arrested or even get shot?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't know the details of the story because I never really care too much about "high profile" cases like this. All I do know is it's scary that this type of thing could probably happen to me.

I live in Florida. I like taking walks at night through my neighborhood because I find it relaxing--there are no people, it's not so hot outside, I like the dark, and I can listen to my music. Usually when I walk after 10 pm I always get stopped by police. I find it very annoying because this is my "me time" but I also understand that the cops are just doing their jobs. All in all, I just tell them my address and that I'm just going for a nightly stroll and they let me be on my way. The cops are totally respectful. I'm just "annoyed" because my me time is being interrupted.

Now, let's say one night I'm on one of my nightly strolls and a concerned citizens spots me. If they want to call the police and the police come and question me, as usual, that's fine and totally their right. However, if they start following me for blocks and blocks, you best believe I'm going to become annoyed. I don't know who they are. They could be some crack head trying to rob me for all I know. If they follow me for a while and eventually run up on me, you best believe I'm going to lay into them with me fists.

Now, tell me. Based on the scenario I just described, would any of you not react the way I did? Would I deserve to get arrested or even get shot?

You have to account for a couple of things here. One, understand that if a person follows you, it's not against the law so if action were taken on you part, it would be a criminal offense on you. having said this, you also have to consider the fact that these people lived in a gated community. If you walked every night or at least often, in your neighborhood, chances are that your neighbors or any neighborhood watch would know you and know your behavior. They probably would not stop you or even follow you. However, if you were a stranger in that community, the changes are probably pretty good that people would watch you and even follow you because, after all, it's a gated community and people who do not live there are not supposed to be there, in most cases. There are some things that have to be considered in the discussion.

 

[Thatkidbob]

Following someone and not identifying oneself it not illegal and does not legally warrant a violent response.

You're correct, in that Zimmerman's actions were not illegal.

They were, however, negligent.

By failing to identify himself Zimmerman escalated the confrontation.

If you were to review the testimony, or if you've done so already, you'll find that everyone from the lead investigator to the witnesses who testified in the trial questioned Zimmerman's failure to identify himself. Without exception, everyone said they would have identified themselves to Martin. Why do you think that is? It's because if Martin knew the identity of the person following him it would have significantly effected the dynamics of the interaction. In the absence of that information, Martin, considering the situation (it's dark, he's being followed first in a car and then on foot by an unknown man for reasons unknown), concluded as most would that the man was a possible threat.

It's impossible to say exactly what happened next, but even if we assume that Martin punched Zimmerman when he went for his phone, it wasn't unreasonable given the situation. Zimmerman had already acted in such a way that reasonable individuals might identify him as a threat, and this movement likely confirmed his status as a threat in Martin's mind. As the defense counsel stated in his closing argument: it doesn't matter if someone comes at you with a rubber knife... as long as you think it might be steel, you're justified in defending yourself. I think that right extends to Martin as well as Zimmerman.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You're correct, in that Zimmerman's actions were not illegal.

They were, however, negligent.

By failing to identify himself Zimmerman escalated the confrontation.

If you were to review the testimony, or if you've done so already, you'll find that everyone from the lead investigator to the witnesses who testified in the trial questioned Zimmerman's failure to identify himself. Without exception, everyone said they would have identified themselves to Martin. Why do you think that is? It's because if Martin knew the identity of the person following him it would have significantly effected the dynamics of the interaction. In the absence of that information, Martin, considering the situation (it's dark, he's being followed first in a car and then on foot by an unknown man for reasons unknown), concluded as most would that the man was a possible threat.

It's impossible to say exactly what happened next, but even if we assume that Martin punched Zimmerman when he went for his phone, it wasn't unreasonable given the situation. Zimmerman had already acted in such a way that reasonable individuals might identify him as a threat, and this movement likely confirmed his status as a threat in Martin's mind. As the defense counsel stated in his closing argument: it doesn't matter if someone comes at you with a rubber knife... as long as you think it might be steel, you're justified in defending yourself. I think that right extends to Martin as well as Zimmerman.

Other then at the point of the actual altercation, were the two men in close enough proximity to identify one another?

 

[Thatkidbob]

Other then at the point of the actual altercation, were the two men in close enough proximity to identify one another?

Great question.

Yes, according to Zimmerman's version of events there were two instances where they were close enough to speak. First, when Martin allegedly circled his car (Zimmerman states that he responded by rolling up his windows out of fear). Secondly, when they exchanged words before the altercation.

 

[Denim Chicken]

You're correct, in that Zimmerman's actions were not illegal.

They were, however, negligent.

By failing to identify himself Zimmerman escalated the confrontation.

If you were to review the testimony, or if you've done so already, you'll find that everyone from the lead investigator to the witnesses who testified in the trial questioned Zimmerman's failure to identify himself. Without exception, everyone said they would have identified themselves to Martin. Why do you think that is? It's because if Martin knew the identity of the person following him it would have significantly effected the dynamics of the interaction. In the absence of that information, Martin, considering the situation (it's dark, he's being followed first in a car and then on foot by an unknown man for reasons unknown), concluded as most would that the man was a possible threat.

It's impossible to say exactly what happened next, but even if we assume that Martin punched Zimmerman when he went for his phone, it wasn't unreasonable given the situation. Zimmerman had already acted in such a way that reasonable individuals might identify him as a threat, and this movement likely confirmed his status as a threat in Martin's mind. As the defense counsel stated in his closing argument: it doesn't matter if someone comes at you with a rubber knife... as long as you think it might be steel, you're justified in defending yourself. I think that right extends to Martin as well as Zimmerman.

The issue with that view is that Zim is not on trial for following Martin or escalating the situation; he is on trial for murder, of which, directly depends on the prosecutions ability to prove he did not pull the trigger in self-defense. To your latter speculation: It is not a legal version of self-defense to start to attack someone who is simply following you. That is an offensive action.

 

[WV Cowboy]

If someone were following me for a time, and I was uncomfortable with that, .. I would probably stop and let them pass. If they passed me then that is that.
If they wanted to talk to me, they could do so when they caught up to me as I stopped to let them pass.
If I were actually afraid for my safety, I would avoid them and lose them, and seek help.

Never would it enter my mind to confront and assault them.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Great question.

Yes, according to Zimmerman's version of events there were two instances where they were close enough to speak. First, when Martin allegedly circled his car (Zimmerman states that he responded by rolling up his windows out of fear). Secondly, when they exchanged words before the altercation.

That's an interesting observation but I don't know that it's relevant. I don't think you can prove negligence because Zimmerman is not obligated to identify himself.

 

[rynochop]

Martin was a 17 year old football player. It was dark and there were many cut throughs. If he was scared, he could have easily ran back to father's house. .

Exactly, he was a varsity WR that supposedly was the fastest guy on the team, this whole Zimmerman 'chased him down' stuff is asinine. Zimmerman is probably guilty of something, but I haven't seen anything that would make me find him anything but not guilty.

 

[Nirvana]

Stand Your Ground law in Florida makes this an easy decision. NOT GUILTY.

 

[Thatkidbob]

Stand Your Ground law in Florida makes this an easy decision. NOT GUILTY.

This isn't a stand your ground trial.

The defense waived it.

 

[AbeBeta]

Stand Your Ground law in Florida makes this an easy decision. NOT GUILTY.

Not even his defense believes that - they aren't arguing on those grounds.

 

[Nirvana]

This isn't a stand your ground trial.

The defense waived it.

They waived the hearing that could have provided civil immunity, but it was to prevent advantages in a jury trial were that hearing not to be successful... something like that. Bottom line is it is a LAW that they are indeed using to show that Zimmerman was justified in killing Martin. And per that law, he absolutely was. He was clearly under threat of physical harm.

 

[Thatkidbob]

That's an interesting observation but I don't know that it's relevant. I don't think you can prove negligence because Zimmerman is not obligated to identify himself.

After reviewing the legal requirements for the offenses Zimmerman is charged with, it looks like you may be right.

Zimmerman's version of events seems fishy, and he's not the most trustworthy guy (IE: he unneccessarily lied about the amount of money he had to defend himself) but there isn't much else to consider.

 

[AbeBeta]

If someone were following me for a time, and I was uncomfortable with that, .. I would probably stop and let them pass. If they passed me then that is that.
If they wanted to talk to me, they could do so when they caught up to me as I stopped to let them pass.
If I were actually afraid for my safety, I would avoid them and lose them, and seek help.

Never would it enter my mind to confront and assault them.

Do you really expect people to take completely rational actions under stress? I expect that both parties would have acted differently had they had the sort of time you have to think about how to handle the situation.

 

[speedkilz88]

The only one who could claim stand your ground was Travan, but he's dead.

 

[Thatkidbob]

They waived the hearing that could have provided civil immunity, but it was to prevent advantages in a jury trial were that hearing not to be successful... something like that. Bottom line is it is a LAW that they are indeed using to show that Zimmerman was justified in killing Martin. And per that law, he absolutely was. He was clearly under threat of physical harm.

We're talking about a guy who held his own against a cop that he described as "big," who previously worked as a bouncer and lost his job due to his temper. How can you be so certain he was standing his ground?

 

[Nirvana]

We're talking about a guy who held his own against a cop that he described as "big," who previously worked as a bouncer and lost his job due to his temper. How can you be so certain he was standing his ground?

Witness accounts and the 911 calls, along with the sustained injuries by Zimmerman (nose, back of head) indicate Martin was on top of Zimmerman doing a ground and pound on him, and thus the justification for Zimmerman to use a gun. I don't see why this is so complicated.

 

[AbeBeta]

Witness accounts and the 911 calls, along with the sustained injuries by Zimmerman (nose, back of head) indicate Martin was on top of Zimmerman doing a ground and pound on him, and thus the justification for Zimmerman to use a gun. I don't see why this is so complicated.

Yes, if you accept the defense's accounts of the fact then it is not complicated.

It gets complicated when you actually listen ... and HEAR ... arguments from both sides.