Video: Zimmerman Juror B-29 Denies Her Own Hand In Letting The Murderer Go..

[Gold_Certificate]

On what evidence would you find him guilty of murder 2?

First degree murder is any murder that is willful and premeditated. Felony murder is typically first degree.

I'd say it was willful based on the fact that he stalked him with a gun, assaulted him, and shot him death, so it could've been first degree as well.

Second degree murder is a murder that is not premeditated or planned in advance

Giving him the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't premeditated, it would still meet that definition of 2nd degree.

The above bolded definitions were from Wikipedia. This case even looks like it could meet the involuntary manslaughter definition.

Nah, you can't go with the general definition, Zimmerman was tried under Florida law and the jury could only choose what was included in the jury instructions.

This required them to first, completely rule out his claim of self-defense; then they could decide whether it was second degree murder or manslaughter. Florida does not have a specific "involuntary manslaughter" statute, so that was not included.

He might of had it coming but doesn't mean he had to sit there and take it does it? Or is sitting there taking an ass whooping while your legally strapped ok in your part of town?

So Trayvon was well within his Rights

And you are beginning to understand why the jury got it wrong,

and understand why there is such outrage

excellent

this should help you further with your new found enlightenment

Involuntary manslaughter stems from a lack of intention to cause death but involving an intentional, or negligent, act leading to death. A drunk driving-related death is typically involuntary manslaughter. Note that the "unintentional" element here refers to the lack of intent to bring about the death. All three crimes above feature an intent to kill, whereas involuntary manslaughter is "unintentional," because the killer did not intend for a death to result from their intentional actions. If there is a presence of intention it relates only to the intent to cause a violent act which brings about the death, but not an intention to bring about the death itself

I don't think Florida has a specific "involuntary manslaughter" statute, but self-defense works against all of the applicable "manslaughter" statutes here.

782.07 Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.—

(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(2) A person who causes the death of any elderly person or disabled adult by culpable negligence under s. 825.102(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(4) A person who causes the death, through culpable negligence, of an officer as defined in s. 943.10(14), a firefighter as defined in s. 112.191, an emergency medical technician as defined in s. 401.23, or a paramedic as defined in s. 401.23, while the officer, firefighter, emergency medical technician, or paramedic is performing duties that are within the course of his or her employment, commits aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

History.—RS 2384; GS 3209; RGS 5039; CGL 7141; s. 715, ch. 71-136; s. 180, ch. 73-333; s. 15, ch. 74-383; s. 6, ch. 75-298; s. 12, ch. 96-322; s. 2, ch. 2002-74.

 

[Gold_Certificate]

It was never murder, it was manslaughter. The DA fucked up.

cs.............Manslaughter out right would have been a conviction regardless of SYG.

Nosign. Zimmerman didn't claim self-defense using "stand your ground" (776.013-3), and self-defense still works against manslaughter.

 

[7figz]

On what evidence would you find him guilty of murder 2?

First degree murder is any murder that is willful and premeditated. Felony murder is typically first degree.

I'd say it was willful based on the fact that he stalked him with a gun, assaulted him, and shot him death, so it could've been first degree as well.

Second degree murder is a murder that is not premeditated or planned in advance

Giving him the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't premeditated, it would still meet that definition of 2nd degree.

The above bolded definitions were from Wikipedia. This case even looks like it could meet the involuntary manslaughter definition.

Nah, you can't go with the general definition, Zimmerman was tried under Florida law and the jury could only choose what was included in the jury instructions.



This required them to first, completely rule out his claim of self-defense; then they could decide whether it was second degree murder or manslaughter. Florida does not have a specific "involuntary manslaughter" statute, so that was not included.

He might of had it coming but doesn't mean he had to sit there and take it does it? Or is sitting there taking an ass whooping while your legally strapped ok in your part of town?

So Trayvon was well within his Rights

And you are beginning to understand why the jury got it wrong,

and understand why there is such outrage

excellent

this should help you further with your new found enlightenment

Involuntary manslaughter stems from a lack of intention to cause death but involving an intentional, or negligent, act leading to death. A drunk driving-related death is typically involuntary manslaughter. Note that the "unintentional" element here refers to the lack of intent to bring about the death. All three crimes above feature an intent to kill, whereas involuntary manslaughter is "unintentional," because the killer did not intend for a death to result from their intentional actions. If there is a presence of intention it relates only to the intent to cause a violent act which brings about the death, but not an intention to bring about the death itself

I don't think Florida has a specific "involuntary manslaughter" statute, but self-defense works against all of the applicable "manslaughter" statutes here.

782.07 Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.—

(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(2) A person who causes the death of any elderly person or disabled adult by culpable negligence under s. 825.102(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(4) A person who causes the death, through culpable negligence, of an officer as defined in s. 943.10(14), a firefighter as defined in s. 112.191, an emergency medical technician as defined in s. 401.23, or a paramedic as defined in s. 401.23, while the officer, firefighter, emergency medical technician, or paramedic is performing duties that are within the course of his or her employment, commits aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

History.—RS 2384; GS 3209; RGS 5039; CGL 7141; s. 715, ch. 71-136; s. 180, ch. 73-333; s. 15, ch. 74-383; s. 6, ch. 75-298; s. 12, ch. 96-322; s. 2, ch. 2002-74.

Ruling out self-defense would've been obvious considering Zimmerman initiated everything.

 

[Gold_Certificate]

On what evidence would you find him guilty of murder 2?

First degree murder is any murder that is willful and premeditated. Felony murder is typically first degree.

I'd say it was willful based on the fact that he stalked him with a gun, assaulted him, and shot him death, so it could've been first degree as well.

Second degree murder is a murder that is not premeditated or planned in advance

Giving him the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't premeditated, it would still meet that definition of 2nd degree.

The above bolded definitions were from Wikipedia. This case even looks like it could meet the involuntary manslaughter definition.

Nah, you can't go with the general definition, Zimmerman was tried under Florida law and the jury could only choose what was included in the jury instructions.



This required them to first, completely rule out his claim of self-defense; then they could decide whether it was second degree murder or manslaughter. Florida does not have a specific "involuntary manslaughter" statute, so that was not included.

He might of had it coming but doesn't mean he had to sit there and take it does it? Or is sitting there taking an ass whooping while your legally strapped ok in your part of town?

So Trayvon was well within his Rights

And you are beginning to understand why the jury got it wrong,

and understand why there is such outrage

excellent

this should help you further with your new found enlightenment

Involuntary manslaughter stems from a lack of intention to cause death but involving an intentional, or negligent, act leading to death. A drunk driving-related death is typically involuntary manslaughter. Note that the "unintentional" element here refers to the lack of intent to bring about the death. All three crimes above feature an intent to kill, whereas involuntary manslaughter is "unintentional," because the killer did not intend for a death to result from their intentional actions. If there is a presence of intention it relates only to the intent to cause a violent act which brings about the death, but not an intention to bring about the death itself

I don't think Florida has a specific "involuntary manslaughter" statute, but self-defense works against all of the applicable "manslaughter" statutes here.

782.07 Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.—

(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(2) A person who causes the death of any elderly person or disabled adult by culpable negligence under s. 825.102(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(4) A person who causes the death, through culpable negligence, of an officer as defined in s. 943.10(14), a firefighter as defined in s. 112.191, an emergency medical technician as defined in s. 401.23, or a paramedic as defined in s. 401.23, while the officer, firefighter, emergency medical technician, or paramedic is performing duties that are within the course of his or her employment, commits aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

History.—RS 2384; GS 3209; RGS 5039; CGL 7141; s. 715, ch. 71-136; s. 180, ch. 73-333; s. 15, ch. 74-383; s. 6, ch. 75-298; s. 12, ch. 96-322; s. 2, ch. 2002-74.

Ruling out self-defense would've been obvious considering Zimmerman initiated everything.

Not under Florida law.

 

[nc81]

She must've finally realized she wasn't white and had too face reality she got punkd

 

[jono]

To be honest this shit needs to be over. We like to think jurors make decisions based on law and evidence but they do not.

There are few juries that make decisions based purely on law and evidence, there are times when people to to prison just because SOMEONE HAD TO GO because the crime was so over the top (not saying this was one of those times).

In 99.9999999% of cases nobody except the victin, judges, defense and prosecution give a damn about why a jury came to the conclusion it did.

The more these assholes come out talking about the case the longer it takes for it to just go away

 

[texas409]

so the first juror they happen to reveal is a black mixed woman? lol America aint shit

 

[7figz]

On what evidence would you find him guilty of murder 2?

First degree murder is any murder that is willful and premeditated. Felony murder is typically first degree.

I'd say it was willful based on the fact that he stalked him with a gun, assaulted him, and shot him death, so it could've been first degree as well.

Second degree murder is a murder that is not premeditated or planned in advance

Giving him the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't premeditated, it would still meet that definition of 2nd degree.

The above bolded definitions were from Wikipedia. This case even looks like it could meet the involuntary manslaughter definition.

Nah, you can't go with the general definition, Zimmerman was tried under Florida law and the jury could only choose what was included in the jury instructions.



This required them to first, completely rule out his claim of self-defense; then they could decide whether it was second degree murder or manslaughter. Florida does not have a specific "involuntary manslaughter" statute, so that was not included.

He might of had it coming but doesn't mean he had to sit there and take it does it? Or is sitting there taking an ass whooping while your legally strapped ok in your part of town?

So Trayvon was well within his Rights

And you are beginning to understand why the jury got it wrong,

and understand why there is such outrage

excellent

this should help you further with your new found enlightenment

Involuntary manslaughter stems from a lack of intention to cause death but involving an intentional, or negligent, act leading to death. A drunk driving-related death is typically involuntary manslaughter. Note that the "unintentional" element here refers to the lack of intent to bring about the death. All three crimes above feature an intent to kill, whereas involuntary manslaughter is "unintentional," because the killer did not intend for a death to result from their intentional actions. If there is a presence of intention it relates only to the intent to cause a violent act which brings about the death, but not an intention to bring about the death itself

I don't think Florida has a specific "involuntary manslaughter" statute, but self-defense works against all of the applicable "manslaughter" statutes here.

782.07 Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.—

(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(2) A person who causes the death of any elderly person or disabled adult by culpable negligence under s. 825.102(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(4) A person who causes the death, through culpable negligence, of an officer as defined in s. 943.10(14), a firefighter as defined in s. 112.191, an emergency medical technician as defined in s. 401.23, or a paramedic as defined in s. 401.23, while the officer, firefighter, emergency medical technician, or paramedic is performing duties that are within the course of his or her employment, commits aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

History.—RS 2384; GS 3209; RGS 5039; CGL 7141; s. 715, ch. 71-136; s. 180, ch. 73-333; s. 15, ch. 74-383; s. 6, ch. 75-298; s. 12, ch. 96-322; s. 2, ch. 2002-74.

Ruling out self-defense would've been obvious considering Zimmerman initiated everything.

Not under Florida law.

Feel free to quote this law that will somehow change the common sense definition of self-defense.

 

[Gold_Certificate]

It was never murder, it was manslaughter. The DA fucked up.

cs.............Manslaughter out right would have been a conviction regardless of SYG.

Nosign. Zimmerman didn't claim self-defense using "stand your ground" (776.013-3), and self-defense still works against manslaughter.

regardless of the law the jurors would have convicted of MS being that it's plausible and emotions played the part. The juror stated they would have convicted if MS was mainly on the table. 2nd degree was just to far fetched with what actually happen and the SYG law.

They may say that, but it would've been a different trial if manslaughter was all they came at him with.

No way to know how they would've felt at the end of it.

 

[Ol Jay's]

lol @ not thinking his intentions wasnt to kill Tray Tray, Zims was the so called captain of the neighborhood watch, you'd have to be a fool to believe Zims didnt know who Tray Tray was, he had been living there for a month, & break ins had recently occured so typically the 1st person people blame is the "new guy", Zims was waiting on Tray Tray to come back from the store & he wasnt letting these"assholes" get away this time

 

[7figz]

To be honest this shit needs to be over. We like to think jurors make decisions based on law and evidence but they do not.

There are few juries that make decisions based purely on law and evidence, there are times when people to to prison just because SOMEONE HAD TO GO because the crime was so over the top (not saying this was one of those times).

In 99.9999999% of cases nobody except the victin, judges, defense and prosecution give a damn about why a jury came to the conclusion it did.

The more these assholes come out talking about the case the longer it takes for it to just go away

Agree with the rest about jurors not only ruling by law and evidence but I have no idea what you mean by it should be over.

 

[Gold_Certificate]

On what evidence would you find him guilty of murder 2?

First degree murder is any murder that is willful and premeditated. Felony murder is typically first degree.

I'd say it was willful based on the fact that he stalked him with a gun, assaulted him, and shot him death, so it could've been first degree as well.

Second degree murder is a murder that is not premeditated or planned in advance

Giving him the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't premeditated, it would still meet that definition of 2nd degree.

The above bolded definitions were from Wikipedia. This case even looks like it could meet the involuntary manslaughter definition.

Nah, you can't go with the general definition, Zimmerman was tried under Florida law and the jury could only choose what was included in the jury instructions.



This required them to first, completely rule out his claim of self-defense; then they could decide whether it was second degree murder or manslaughter. Florida does not have a specific "involuntary manslaughter" statute, so that was not included.

He might of had it coming but doesn't mean he had to sit there and take it does it? Or is sitting there taking an ass whooping while your legally strapped ok in your part of town?

So Trayvon was well within his Rights

And you are beginning to understand why the jury got it wrong,

and understand why there is such outrage

excellent

this should help you further with your new found enlightenment

Involuntary manslaughter stems from a lack of intention to cause death but involving an intentional, or negligent, act leading to death. A drunk driving-related death is typically involuntary manslaughter. Note that the "unintentional" element here refers to the lack of intent to bring about the death. All three crimes above feature an intent to kill, whereas involuntary manslaughter is "unintentional," because the killer did not intend for a death to result from their intentional actions. If there is a presence of intention it relates only to the intent to cause a violent act which brings about the death, but not an intention to bring about the death itself

I don't think Florida has a specific "involuntary manslaughter" statute, but self-defense works against all of the applicable "manslaughter" statutes here.

782.07 Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.—

(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(2) A person who causes the death of any elderly person or disabled adult by culpable negligence under s. 825.102(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(4) A person who causes the death, through culpable negligence, of an officer as defined in s. 943.10(14), a firefighter as defined in s. 112.191, an emergency medical technician as defined in s. 401.23, or a paramedic as defined in s. 401.23, while the officer, firefighter, emergency medical technician, or paramedic is performing duties that are within the course of his or her employment, commits aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

History.—RS 2384; GS 3209; RGS 5039; CGL 7141; s. 715, ch. 71-136; s. 180, ch. 73-333; s. 15, ch. 74-383; s. 6, ch. 75-298; s. 12, ch. 96-322; s. 2, ch. 2002-74.

Ruling out self-defense would've been obvious considering Zimmerman initiated everything.

Not under Florida law.

Feel free to quote this law that will somehow change the common sense definition of self-defense.

Nothing here that says "he or she can not--through any means--initiate the events leading to the eventual use of deadly force":

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

There's even a statute that allows for the use of deadly force by the aggressor, but the defense decided to remove it from the jury instructions:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

 

[Chef_Taylor]

Now she wanna talk.foh

 

[Chef_Taylor]

She's actually right. You can't just vote guilty because that's how you feel. It's that SYG shit.

But you can't just vote not guilty because you feel that he learned his lesson like the last bitch said.

I don't understand the hate for her, if you want to hate anything hate the Florida state justice system. Repeal SYG.

The fuck if you can't. My black ass would still be in that box today if I was on that jury. I would have been all kinds of black nigger bitches cause ain't no way you would have gotten me to vote "not guilty." It would not have occurred.

Thats right baby!!!!!

 

[7figz]

On what evidence would you find him guilty of murder 2?

First degree murder is any murder that is willful and premeditated. Felony murder is typically first degree.

I'd say it was willful based on the fact that he stalked him with a gun, assaulted him, and shot him death, so it could've been first degree as well.

Second degree murder is a murder that is not premeditated or planned in advance

Giving him the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't premeditated, it would still meet that definition of 2nd degree.

The above bolded definitions were from Wikipedia. This case even looks like it could meet the involuntary manslaughter definition.

Nah, you can't go with the general definition, Zimmerman was tried under Florida law and the jury could only choose what was included in the jury instructions.



This required them to first, completely rule out his claim of self-defense; then they could decide whether it was second degree murder or manslaughter. Florida does not have a specific "involuntary manslaughter" statute, so that was not included.

He might of had it coming but doesn't mean he had to sit there and take it does it? Or is sitting there taking an ass whooping while your legally strapped ok in your part of town?

So Trayvon was well within his Rights

And you are beginning to understand why the jury got it wrong,

and understand why there is such outrage

excellent

this should help you further with your new found enlightenment

Involuntary manslaughter stems from a lack of intention to cause death but involving an intentional, or negligent, act leading to death. A drunk driving-related death is typically involuntary manslaughter. Note that the "unintentional" element here refers to the lack of intent to bring about the death. All three crimes above feature an intent to kill, whereas involuntary manslaughter is "unintentional," because the killer did not intend for a death to result from their intentional actions. If there is a presence of intention it relates only to the intent to cause a violent act which brings about the death, but not an intention to bring about the death itself

I don't think Florida has a specific "involuntary manslaughter" statute, but self-defense works against all of the applicable "manslaughter" statutes here.

782.07 Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.—

(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(2) A person who causes the death of any elderly person or disabled adult by culpable negligence under s. 825.102(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(4) A person who causes the death, through culpable negligence, of an officer as defined in s. 943.10(14), a firefighter as defined in s. 112.191, an emergency medical technician as defined in s. 401.23, or a paramedic as defined in s. 401.23, while the officer, firefighter, emergency medical technician, or paramedic is performing duties that are within the course of his or her employment, commits aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

History.—RS 2384; GS 3209; RGS 5039; CGL 7141; s. 715, ch. 71-136; s. 180, ch. 73-333; s. 15, ch. 74-383; s. 6, ch. 75-298; s. 12, ch. 96-322; s. 2, ch. 2002-74.

Ruling out self-defense would've been obvious considering Zimmerman initiated everything.

Not under Florida law.

Feel free to quote this law that will somehow change the common sense definition of self-defense.

Nothing here that says "he or she can not--through any means--initiate the events leading to the eventual use of deadly force":

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

There's even a statute that allows for the use of deadly force by the aggressor, but the defense decided to remove it from the jury instructions:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

1. It depends on who you consider to be using "defense". It could be said that the unarmed, physically smaller, untrained boxer, minor, who was stalked could have been the only person possibly using self-defense.

2. If you still somehow managed to say that the fat stalker was the one using defense, the first law you quoted says "except deadly force" and "to prevent imminent death". The fat bastard didn't meet either one of those.

 

[Gold_Certificate]

On what evidence would you find him guilty of murder 2?

First degree murder is any murder that is willful and premeditated. Felony murder is typically first degree.

I'd say it was willful based on the fact that he stalked him with a gun, assaulted him, and shot him death, so it could've been first degree as well.

Second degree murder is a murder that is not premeditated or planned in advance

Giving him the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't premeditated, it would still meet that definition of 2nd degree.

The above bolded definitions were from Wikipedia. This case even looks like it could meet the involuntary manslaughter definition.

Nah, you can't go with the general definition, Zimmerman was tried under Florida law and the jury could only choose what was included in the jury instructions.



This required them to first, completely rule out his claim of self-defense; then they could decide whether it was second degree murder or manslaughter. Florida does not have a specific "involuntary manslaughter" statute, so that was not included.

I don't think Florida has a specific "involuntary manslaughter" statute, but self-defense works against all of the applicable "manslaughter" statutes here.

782.07 Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.—

(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(2) A person who causes the death of any elderly person or disabled adult by culpable negligence under s. 825.102(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(4) A person who causes the death, through culpable negligence, of an officer as defined in s. 943.10(14), a firefighter as defined in s. 112.191, an emergency medical technician as defined in s. 401.23, or a paramedic as defined in s. 401.23, while the officer, firefighter, emergency medical technician, or paramedic is performing duties that are within the course of his or her employment, commits aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

History.—RS 2384; GS 3209; RGS 5039; CGL 7141; s. 715, ch. 71-136; s. 180, ch. 73-333; s. 15, ch. 74-383; s. 6, ch. 75-298; s. 12, ch. 96-322; s. 2, ch. 2002-74.

Ruling out self-defense would've been obvious considering Zimmerman initiated everything.

Not under Florida law.

Feel free to quote this law that will somehow change the common sense definition of self-defense.

Nothing here that says "he or she can not--through any means--initiate the events leading to the eventual use of deadly force":

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

There's even a statute that allows for the use of deadly force by the aggressor, but the defense decided to remove it from the jury instructions:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

1. It depends on who you consider to be using "defense". It could be said that the unarmed, physically smaller, untrained boxer, minor, who was stalked could have been the only person possibly using self-defense.

2. If you still somehow managed to say that the fat stalker was the one using defense, the first law you quoted says "except deadly force" and "to prevent imminent death". The fat bastard didn't meet either one of those.

There's nothing in the law that says only one person involved in an altercation can be acting in self-defense.

After the bolded the law says "However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself".

That's what the prosecution had to prove wrong; by completely ruling out that Zimmerman could've felt the underlined.

If they couldn't put forth an argument for second degree murder or manslaughter that completely ruled out any alternatives, all that was left was this:

 

[Darth Sidious]

 

[The Lonious Monk]

The chick proves my point. The prosecution botched this case from the start. They put everything they had into trying to prove a Murder 2 charge when that was a long shot from the start. They got Manslaughter included in there hoping that the jury would give them that as a consolation prize.

But listen to what that chick said. She said that they couldn't convict Zimmerman because the prosecution didn't prove that he got out of that car with the intention to kill Trayvon. The problem is, the prosecution didn't have to prove that for a Manslaughter charge to stick. That's the primary distinction between Murder and Manslaughter. This tells me that the jury went with an all or nothing type approach. They didn't believe the Prosecution proved the top charge so they dismissed it all.

 

[1of1]

I think she should have used the word "killing" in her last statement as opposed to "murder," just to make things clear.

 

[Allah_U_Akbar]

Hmmm.. shocked I haven't seen a "smash" post lol

which I concur btw

SMASH!

...With a baseball bat after I finish raping and sodomizing her.