Zimmerman Could Be Convicted of Lesser Offense

[LAGC]

To many people, there is no middle ground: George Zimmerman will either be convicted of Second Degree Murder or he will be found Not Guilty.

But the reality is much more complex, because the jury will have a number of Lesser Included Offenses to choose from.

And because of these numerous options, it is not uncommon for a jury to exercise what is known as their “pardon” or “nullification” power and return a compromise verdict that they believe is just under the circumstances. See generally Haygood v. State, 109 So. 3d 735 (Fla. 2013).

Lesser Included Offenses
..
..

Manslaughter;
Third Degree Felony Murder;
Aggravated Battery;
Aggravated Assault;
Felony Battery;
Culpable Negligence (Argument can be made not applicable);
Battery; and
Assault.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/even-...erve-25-years/

Could take quite awhile for the jury to come to a verdict...

[Dr. Gonzo GED]

Manslaughter;

Izz possible? But that's more along the lines of a negligent discharge related death.

Third Degree Felony Murder;

Also possible, but hard to reconcile with self defense. He didn't kill Trayvon because Skittles make him lose it, he shot because he was in fear for his life.

Aggravated Battery;

That would be Trayvon.

Aggravated Assault;

Also trayvon.

Felony Battery;

The only melee wounds on Trayvon were on his knuckles. Zim didn't get a punch in. Hard to argue battery when he didn't "batter" anyone. Any criminal action on Zimmerman's part will be related to the shooting.

Culpable Negligence (Argument can be made not applicable);

I wonder if it could apply though. Chasing creepy people through the shadows is pretty stupid. Zim is certainly guilty of that...

Battery;

Trayvon again.

Assault.

Mo trayvon.

Either the shoot was bogus or it wasn't. You can't just throw something that doesn't apply at it. Assault of any flavor goes out the window with the fairly credible self defense thing in play.

[Schuetzenman]

Zimmerman Could Be Convicted of Lesser Offense

Mostly it's about convicting a guy that has a German white guy's name, (but isn't) having shot a black 17 year old street punk that thought he was really bad-ass, (but wasn't).

[l921428x]

zimm will walk if the jury is honest. but they know, if theydo, al sharpton will instigate riots.

[NAPOTS]

They could give him a ticket for improperly disposing of garbage, that would be the appropriate lesser offence.

[El Jefe]

You know, it's weird, on basically every set of forums I post on there's that "one fucking guy" who has a complete freaking hard on for Zimmerman and have screamed since day one that he should have the book thrown at him.

It doesn't matter to any of them that the guy did no wrong and that this was a righteous shoot!

Fuck em, from what I can see, they're all losers.

[Krupski]

Mostly it's about convicting a guy that has a German white guy's name, (but isn't) having shot a black 17 year old street punk that thought he was really bad-ass, (but wasn't).

He should change his name to something like "Carpenter".

[Krupski]

They could give him a ticket for improperly disposing of garbage, that would be the appropriate lesser offense.

[Justin]

With the jury being all female, I can easily see their emotions get in the way of good judgement. I think Zimmerman will be convicted of a lesser charge.

[Kadmos]

It's really unlikely the judge is going to let all that in, but there is a good chance she might allow manslaughter.

In the original police report the cop wrote it up as a possible manslaughter charge, which is what the state originally declined to prosecute on.

The one factor that supports that is that Zimmerman (*likely/ may have*) continued to follow Trayvon and could have avoided the entire incident. That he set the conditions that led to the likelihood of confrontation.

[Dr. Gonzo GED]

The one factor that supports that is that Zimmerman (*likely/ may have*) continued to follow Trayvon and could have avoided the entire incident. That he set the conditions that led to the likelihood of confrontation.

There's nothing illegal or provacative about walking around where you live.

[Kadmos]

There's nothing illegal or provacative about walking around where you live.

Manslaughter doesn't require the commission of another crime. It often does, such as in the case of drunk driving, but it's not required.

As to provocation, following someone around, particularly at night has the foreseeable consequence of some type of confrontation.

This is how the state came to the murder two charge, the idea that Zimmerman was thinking "I'm going to stop me a criminal" (or something to that effect).

The problem there is you basically have to get into Zimmerman's head and to the level to know he was thinking "I'm going to kill this guy" before the actual confrontation...and that's a hell of a stretch.

[Dr. Gonzo GED]

The problem there is you basically have to get into Zimmerman's head and to the level to know he was thinking "I'm going to kill this guy" before the actual confrontation...and that's a hell of a stretch.

Therein lies the rub. "Hell of a stretch" equals "reasonable doubt".

There's definitely "reasonable doubt" about the murder 2 charge.

Manslaugter requies some type of culpable negligence. Speeding in your car. Locking the fire exit. Launching anvils with a trebuchete. Some kind of stupidity on your part that gets another person killed.

Zimmerman was defending himself against a violent assault. The forensic evidence ans eye witnesses coroborate that claim.

If they really wanted to scrape the barrel for some kind of charge they should have gone with "discharge of a firearm within city limits". At least that would be a valid accusation.

[Kadmos]

Therein lies the rub. "Hell of a stretch" equals "reasonable doubt".

There's definitely "reasonable doubt" about the murder 2 charge.

Plenty in my opinion.

Manslaugter requies some type of culpable negligence. Speeding in your car. Locking the fire exit. Launching anvils with a trebuchete. Some kind of stupidity on your part that gets another person killed.

Involuntary manslaughter does. I think the argument here is that Zimmerman (may) have gone looking for the fight, or that the act of following Trayvon ends with a likelihood of confrontation.

Which brings us to voluntary manslaughter, as in Zimmerman intended to harm or kill Trayvon with the fatal shot, which is true.

In a average case where self defense is probable or likely, the classic charge is voluntary manslaughter, not murder.

Typically that's what self defense is in fact, voluntary manslaughter, the intentional killing of another person.

Zimmerman meant to cause harm or death, pretty much any self defense case is at least voluntary manslaughter.

Zimmerman was defending himself against a violent assault. The forensic evidence ans eye witnesses coroborate that claim.

Most likely this is true.

If they really wanted to scrape the barrel for some kind of charge they should have gone with "discharge of a firearm within city limits". At least that would be a valid accusation.

I made a joke about it being littering in another thread, for leaving a body on the ground.

Obviously the judge isn't going to allow that type of stuff, if we see another charge, I think it will be manslaughter, if I were the judge that's the only one I might allow.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

LAGC you're a douche. you too professor Kadmos. What do you two have against self defense? Because the assailant was black and the guy defending his life was a WHITE LATINO? A brand new media created race?

[El Jefe]

Um remember, if Hussein had a son.....

These two are enablers and won't be telling the truth or admitting fault anytime soon. That would be against the troll code.

[Kadmos]

...Professor Kadmos. What do you two have against self defense?

Excellent question Patty, I have nothing against self defense. Self defense is a basic right of any life form.

However, legally speaking, self-defense is always an admission to voluntary manslaughter (or intentional battery). The person claiming self-defense is essentially saying "Yes, I caused that death (or harm), however, I have a very good reason for my actions, I was defending my life (or health)"

It's what is called an affirmative defense, saying "Yes I did it, but I had to"

[studmuffin]

God forbid Kad that you are ever backed into a corner with your life threatened.

[Kadmos]

God forbid Kad that you are ever backed into a corner with your life threatened.

Thank you. Same to you. I hope neither of us end up in this situation.

If we do though, I hope both of us will have the presence of mind, the skill, and the means to do what Zimmerman did and successfully defend our lives.

[weevil]

You know, it's weird, on basically every set of forums I post on there's that "one fucking guy" who has a complete freaking hard on for Zimmerman and have screamed since day one that he should have the book thrown at him.

It doesn't matter to any of them that the guy did no wrong and that this was a righteous shoot!

Fuck em, from what I can see, they're all losers.

*cough* AKM *cough*