Quote:
Originally Posted by kirant
I get murder, but manslaughter confuses me a little. 2nd degree murder has the following conditions:
1) Person A kills Person B
2) Person A's actions were out of spite and malice (that Person A wanted Person B dead despite being of no imminent threat or danger)
3) Person A's actions are not excusable as justified or excusable homicide.
That makes sense as being ruled out. There's a lot of innuendo, but no proof, that Zimmerman killed Martin out of spite, assuming that all else is true. They were in a fight and there is no proof that Martin was defenceless at any point (which, even then, draws into questions as to whether this would be manslaughter or murder). So this fails on condition 2. No need to look at 3 since it fails on the 2nd condition alone.
The conditions for manslaughter are:
1) Person A kills Person B
2) Person A's actions are not excusable as justified or excusable homicide.
1) seems true. This means it needs to not be defined as justified or excusable homicide.
Justified homicides were defined as:
1) Prevention of murder of oneself
2) Prevention of a felony being committed on oneself or on one's property
Excusable homicides were defined as:
1) Accidental homicide without unlawful intent
2) Accidental homicide due to heat of the moment actions/sudden provokation
3) Accidental homicide due to combat without dangerous weapons used in without cruel or unusual intent.
Excusable homicides don't make sense. If Zimmerman did shoot Martin, there would have been intent to kill or at least harm. Shooting at the centre of mass would also indicate that it wasn't a poorly placed warning shot (and even if it was, I'm not sure any jury would ever believe it). Sudden provocation would have been more like Martin jumping Zimmerman as he was strolling along and Martin being shot before getting jumped.
This leaves justified homicide. And this is where I'm stuck. I'm not sure there's conclusive proof that Martin wanted Zimmerman dead and was trying to beat Zimmerman to death. We, honestly, don't know who provoked the fight nor who was on top (I do draw into question the credibility of a single eye witness).
But the burden of proof of it being Zimmerman was on the prosecutor's hands to prove it being 2nd degree murder. To invoke justified homicide, however, we need proof that Martin was the provoker and was committing felony or murder on Zimmerman. There's not enough proof to, in my mind, reasonably deduce that it was justified homicide.
And this is where I'm a bit stuck. I haven't followed this case in great detail, but I don't know if there's proof of either being true or who was winning when the shooting happened. Which leaves me stuck concluding manslaughter since I can't prove that the shooting falls under justified.
|
I would imagine that once the jury heard the testimony that Zimmerman had given up the chase and was going back to his vehicle and Martin instead of clearing the scene and going home went back and pretty much attacked Zimmerman put him in a vulnerable position and began to basically pummel him that they couldn't prove anything other then fight for life.
That's my guess. I get where the jury is coming from. I think they made the right call in this place.
The prosecution was stupid in going after the second degree murder charge. They were inept in vetting their witnesses who did more to harm their case, Especially Martin's girl friend.
Even if there was a conviction it probably would have been turned on appeal and retried.