Justice for Zimmerman

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hoss

Hoss

Make America's Team Great Again
<Gold Donor>
27,253
15,412
I'm Rich Bitch_sl said:
If Zimmerman walks, Florida is going to burn and it deserves to do so. Fuck Florida. "Stand your ground" my fucking ass.
Click to expand...
Sometimes I stop and think about how bleak my life would be if there weren't idiots like this in the world to laugh at. You might as well curse speeding laws for all the sense it makes.
 
Edaw

Edaw

Parody
<Gold Donor>
13,298
88,208
My guess is they are questioning the validity of self defense as it relates to the jury instructions for manslaughter since it's not explicitly stated.

To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. Trayvon Martin is dead.

2. George Zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin.

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

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.

The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon George Zimmerman, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which George Zimmerman was at the time of the killing.

The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances:

1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or

2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or

3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.

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.

If you find George Zimmerman committed Manslaughter, and you also find beyond a reasonable doubt that during the commission of the Manslaughter, George Zimmerman carried, displayed, used, threatened to use, or attempted to use a firearm, you should check the appropriate box on the verdict form which I will discuss with you later in these instructions.
Click to expand...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/153357899/Zimmerman-Final-Jury-Instructions
 
Fedor

Fedor

<Banned>
17,344
47,328
I'm Rich Bitch_sl said:
If Zimmerman walks, Florida is going to burn and it deserves to do so. Fuck Florida. "Stand your ground" my fucking ass.
Click to expand...
you:

im2sI1BUOGHnZ.gif
 
Cad

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,441
49,107
Edaw_sl said:
My guess is they are questioning the validity of self defense as it relates to the jury instructions for manslaughter since it's not explicitly stated.
Click to expand...
Actually it is

Jury Instructions_sl said:
An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.
Click to expand...
Page 12 of jury instructions
 
Edaw

Edaw

Parody
<Gold Donor>
13,298
88,208
Yeah, I was talking about the manslaughter instruction page itself. It's vague and includes that whole felony part which leaves the jury wondering if getting punched a few times and your head bashed on concrete constitutes a felony or is just boys being boys. no idea, they're women.
 
Abefroman

Abefroman

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
12,594
11,937
From what they are saying is the instructions for manslaughter were confusing and they simply might need clarification to get rid of as much of the legalize as possible.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Jury question was effectively this "Can you clarify the instructions regarding manslaughter."

Which isn't specific enough so the lawyers and judge need to ask them to clarify their question.

Could be they're wanting to know how self defense and manslaughter relate, for instance.

This actually could be a good sign in a way.
 
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
Sounds like they've just dismissed murder and are trying to decide if it's manslaughter. And manslaughter boils down to just one question. Not "is self defense/ the justifiable use of deadly force applicable" but "did he need to bring that gun". Not was it legal for him to bring that gun, or was it justifiable for him to bring that gun, but did he need to. My guess is that's where their doubts are.

Won't really be able to guess how they answer that until they answer that.
 
Cad

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,441
49,107
Iannis_sl said:
Sounds like they've just dismissed murder and are trying to decide if it's manslaughter. And manslaughter boils down to just one question. Not "is self defense/ the justifiable use of deadly force applicable" but "did he need to bring that gun". Not was it legal for him to bring that gun, or was it justifiable for him to bring that gun, but did he need to. My guess is that's where their doubts are.

Won't really be able to guess how they answer that until they answer that.
Click to expand...
Where did you get the idea that manslaughter boils down to "did he need to bring that gun" ?
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
47,456
81,084
The part about manslaughter seems pretty confusing to me:

The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the
following three circumstances:
...

2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any
sudden and sufficient provocation, or
Click to expand...
However the below page with justifiable use of deadly force and self-defense seems crystal clear. If Zimmerman thought he was going to be caused great bodily harm he could legally kill TM.
 
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
Cad_sl said:
Where did you get the idea that manslaughter boils down to "did he need to bring that gun" ?
Click to expand...
Because if you decide what he did was manslaughter, that's the question that leads you there.

Emotional arguments, man.

Edit: And that might be what the clarification is for, as well as it maybe just being a bit confusing. You know, to keep the decision being about Zimmermans actions rather than being about gun control.
 
Cad

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,441
49,107
Iannis_sl said:
Because if you decide what he did was manslaughter, that's the question that leads you there.

Emotional arguments, man.
Click to expand...
What he did was manslaughter, but it is justified by self defense. Doesn't mean his conduct doesn't fill the elements of manslaughter.
 
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
I kinda doubt that's how 6 middle aged women see it.

Being completely honest, not tryin to troll you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.