Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gator996, Aug 13, 2013.
Care to explain?
I will be curious too, since there very clearly is an intent component to manslaughter.
I'm on my phone. I have no idea what each post is numbered.
How One Zimmerman Juror Went From Second-Degree Murder To Acquittal
In interviews aired Thursday night and Friday morning, a juror who identified herself as “Maddy” from the six-person panel that acquitted George Zimmerman said she changed her vote from second-degree murder to acquittal after reconsidering the law as described to her in the jury instructions.
Maddy, who was Juror B29, said that while Zimmerman “got away with murder” as far as her heart was concerned, she felt the law as described to her did not allow her to convict him. In an exchange with ABC’s Robin Roberts, she suggested that in order to find Zimmerman guilty even of manslaughter, he had to have intent to kill Trayvon Martin when he left his home:
ROBERTS: When you all sent that note to the judge asking for an explanation on manslaughter, what was that about?
MADDY: What we were trying to figure out was, manslaughter, in order to be charged, we had to prove that when he left home, he said, I’m gonna go kill Trayvon Martin.
The note referenced by Roberts was a question from the jury to the judge asking that she clarify the definition of manslaughter. The judge said she could only respond to more specific questions, and the jury never followed up with another question.
If the jury did decide that Zimmerman had to have the intent to kill Martin when he left his home, that is an incorrect assessment of the law. What Maddy describes in this exchange is equivalent to “premeditation,” and while such premeditation is required for some murder charges, it is not an element of manslaughter. In fact, the definition of “manslaughter” as described in the jury instructions makes explicit that no intent to kill is required — even at the time the gun was fired:
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.
Read more: http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas/showthread.php?t=268006&page=2#ixzz2bryOP0YA
See, that just isn't true at all. The instructions plainly state that to prove manslaughter the state had to prove that Zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin. And then, separately, distinguish that the act cannot be one of mere negligence or cannot be justifiable or excusable homicide. But seriously? If you see the word "intentionally" in a statutory jury instruction, it's not a typo.
But it doesn't matter. What 996 is either willfully blind to or genuinely incapable of understanding is that the statute, even if scrupulously followed by a panel of six experts immersed in Florida criminal law, could not support a conviction based on the facts in the case. So the fact the jury did their geometry proof in 12 steps, some of them incorrect, before getting the right answer, instead of the three correct steps it actually took, doesn't really undermine the validity of the result. He was not guilty. Nobody could vote guilty and be following the instructions, period. Not subject to debate amongst people who know what the hell they are talking about, not on murder, not on manslaughter.
Looking for that strict liability crime...