Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman Trial Set to Start

Remove all ads!

Drew: Did you get a chance to listen to the conversation with the dispatcher? Is it available to the public (I'd be surprised if it was, but might check it out if it is), or are you somehow privy to it for another reason? If you haven't actually heard it, how can you say that "anyone listening to the conversation with the dispatcher would be aware that Zimmerman was already chasing down Trayvon with the explicit intent of subduing or holding him against his will"?

BTA: Self-defense is a type of intent, though, and it's precisely self-defense that we're talking about. Drew was saying that the "intent" of self-defense no longer mattered in this case because in manslaughter, intent doesn't matter, and the fact that if he hadn't been chasing Martin down, Martin wouldn't have died was what mattered. Walking behind someone/following them is not normally any more unlawful than having a fancy object in your house, unless there's some kind of unlawful intent. Therefore, obviously even in manslaughter, intent has to play some role.

 

That's actually quite false ... the police report contains no indication that Zimmerman was chasing Martin at all. Following, yes, briefly, supposedly to ascertain Martin's location and collect a street address for police. Chasing, no.

V, much information can be found on the Wiki, including audio of Zimmerman's call to police. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

 

Admittedly, I'm doing a bit of basic math to conclude Zimmerman was chasing him. Namely, Trayvon was running, and Zimmerman was following him. To do that, Zimmerman would have needed to be running, too. Here's a transcript:

 

This is true, but it's more of a case of selection bias at work. You see, it's the AG's office that gets to decide which cases they take and which ones they don't. The legal system is overcrowded the way it is, and so they get to cherry pick the cases. A lot of times, if they think it's unlikely they'll get a conviction, they won't press charges in the first place. The main reason you'll see most AG's offices with a 90%+ conviction rate isn't because most people who are charged are guilty, it's because they only take the cases they are extremely likely to win.

There is nothing preventing them from charging him with both 2nd degree murder AND manslaughter. Mind you, I don't know if that's the case here, but I know from my time serving on a grand jury that anyone charged with murder was also charged with manslaughter. (They are also charged with assault, and in the case of Maryland law, he would also have been charged with using a handgun in commission of a felony. But I don't know if Florida has a comparable law on the books.)

Like I said, without seeing the full list of charges against Zimmerman, I don't know what type of options the jury will have at their disposal, but it would be highly unusual if the only charge he was facing was 2nd degree murder. Typically, the only way manslaughter wouldn't be added to the list of charges is if they really think they'll get a murder conviction. History does show that when a jury is presented with both options, and it's not an open and shut case, they tend to go with the lesser manslaughter charge.

 

Interestingly, the docket appears limited to Second Degree Murder, at least ATM.

http://www.seminoleclerk.org/CriminalDocket/case_detail.jsp?CaseNo=592012CF001083A

 

First, to Aldeth:

I understand that they could have charged him with both. That's why I used the word "if":

I probably could have been clearer if I'd added another sentence explaining that obviously, if he's been charged with both, then a conviction of manslaughter would be a possibility, but for some reason, I thought the "if" would be sufficient, even though I've had this specific predicament in the past. Sorry about that.

Blackthorne:
Aha! So, there is either some intent toward the eventual victim or wrongdoing that "caused" the death (like intoxication while driving, which people know in advance is illegal), but not the intent to kill. That makes much more sense. So, showing aggression towards the victim wouldn't necessarily be an intent to kill, but it would be enough of an intent that a resulting death would still be manslaughter, even if the eventual victor was defending him/herself. On the other hand, in the case of the burglary, the eventual victor never shows anything other than trying to protect him/herself, so it's not manslaughter. Still looks pretty wiggly to me, but I get it.

 

I think you're missing a parenthesis at the end of that link, dmc.

 

It works now but I think it was fixed by Mr. BTA.