Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Tommy_Carcetti

(44,471 posts)
6. You're forgetting the lesser included charge of manslaughter.
Mon Jul 1, 2013, 08:29 AM
Jul 2013

People keep obsessing that the state somehow "overcharged" Zimmerman with the 2nd Degree Murder charge (which does require proof of a callous disregard for human life but does not require proof of premeditation like 1st Degree does) but forget that even if Zimmerman is acquitted of 2nd Degree Murder he could still be convicted of Manslaughter (which merely requires that Zimmerman reckless actions caused Martin's death.)

There's a fine line between callous disregard for life and recklessness, but arguably both are still on the table. The state does not have to prove that Zimmerman set out to kill Trayvon.

An example where the state did overcharge was the Casey Anthony murder case, where she was charged with 1st Degree, premeditated capital murder. Not that Casey didn't lie to investigators (to which she was convicted) and that her actions weren't suspicious and stunk to high heavens. However, in that case, the remains of Caylee had deteriorated so much when they were found that it was impossible to get an exact cause of death. Could have been intentional murder, could have been recklessness, could have been negligence, might even have been totally natural--it just wasn't clear. For whatever reason, the state decided to proceed with 1st Degree murder and make the argument that Casey intentionally killed her daughter because she wanted to resume her old partying lifestyle. That certainly was a plausible argument to make, but without an actual cause of death, it was all just speculation.

Of course, even a manslaughter conviction was hard to get for Anthony because the state had pretty much locked itself into the story that Casey intentionally killed her daughter and that was the story they chose to present to the jury. Arguing that Caylee died due to some act of recklessness or negligence and then Casey covered it up (also quite a plausible theory) was something of an afterthought after the state had spent so much effort claiming Caylee's death was 1st degree premeditated murder. (Not to mention that even in light of manslaughter, the state still couldn't definitively show the cause of death, so that still would have been a major obstacle to overcome even with a lower bar of culpability).

Here, the question of whether Zimmerman acted merely recklessly or with callous disregard for Travyon's life is a much closer question. Plus we are dealing with a smaller set of disputed facts. Unlike Casey Anthony (and OJ Simpson) we aren't dealing with a Defendant who is denying committing the homicide. So there's no talk of alibis or whodunit--it's a straight whydunit.

So all the concerns that Zimmerman was "overcharged" or that this case is the next Casey Anthony/OJ Simpson case is overwrought, IMHO. For now, let's trust the legal system.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

"self defense" because the guy with the gun is always supposed to win? KurtNYC Jul 2013 #1
Of course Zimmerman is responsible for what happened hack89 Jul 2013 #2
You're forgetting the lesser included charge of manslaughter. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2013 #6
That could get tricky for the government hack89 Jul 2013 #8
That was the problem with the Casey Anthony case. It's not really the case here. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2013 #10
Zim admits to shooting him so the presumption of innocence is a little different here KurtNYC Jul 2013 #9
There are justified homicides hack89 Jul 2013 #12
So the burden of proof is on ZIMMERMAN to justify it NOT the prosecution uponit7771 Jul 2013 #24
That is NOT how the court system works joeglow3 Jul 2013 #29
No - that is not how it works hack89 Jul 2013 #35
Who determines if the defendant has made a prima facie showing of self defense? dkf Jul 2013 #49
Not sure. I suspect the process is tilted towards the defendant hack89 Jul 2013 #50
Also from your link, self defense needs aggravated battery. dkf Jul 2013 #52
Personally, I wouldn't think so. PotatoChip Jul 2013 #56
I'm sorry but this was murder in the first degree madokie Jul 2013 #3
I am not the one who charged him with 2nd degree murder - the state of Florida did. hack89 Jul 2013 #4
didn't say you were madokie Jul 2013 #5
Having a round chamberr does not prove premeditation. GreenStormCloud Jul 2013 #7
No its not madokie Jul 2013 #13
no, of you carry for self defence you hsve the gun ready yo fire loli phabay Jul 2013 #15
LOL madokie Jul 2013 #16
Every day that you are out in public, you pass by people like me. GreenStormCloud Jul 2013 #32
I know several madokie Jul 2013 #36
You have checked with CWL instructors? GreenStormCloud Jul 2013 #38
All hunters I know have a round chambered, safety on, finger off the trigger. GreenStormCloud Jul 2013 #18
Nope on both counts madokie Jul 2013 #19
I was in Vietnam too. GreenStormCloud Jul 2013 #23
Notice you're a Nam vet, premium Jul 2013 #27
Nope madokie Jul 2013 #30
So you and your unit waited until contact to chamber your weapons and give premium Jul 2013 #40
whenever I rack any weapon I immediatly top of my mag loli phabay Jul 2013 #31
That's the smart thing to do premium Jul 2013 #41
I don't believe him at all. GreenStormCloud Jul 2013 #45
I don't either. premium Jul 2013 #48
Not sure if serious... Pelican Jul 2013 #34
WTF madokie Jul 2013 #39
WTF indeed... Pelican Jul 2013 #44
My definition of self defense doesn't include starting the ruckus to begin with. hobbit709 Jul 2013 #11
Unfortunately Florida law sees it differently than you do. nt hack89 Jul 2013 #14
No it doesn't madokie Jul 2013 #17
Florida law allows the aggressor to use deadly force in self defense in specific situations hack89 Jul 2013 #20
Damn sure not in this situation madokie Jul 2013 #21
I take it you have not read the law. nt hack89 Jul 2013 #25
I take it you don't understand the law madokie Jul 2013 #26
It is in black and white. hack89 Jul 2013 #37
you are wrong RGR375 Jul 2013 #53
ZIMMERMAN TRAINED MMA 3 TIMES A WEEK! I don't believe they left that little tid bit out... uponit7771 Jul 2013 #22
This is the most bizarre trial I've ever watched. pintobean Jul 2013 #28
Hell, this keeps up premium Jul 2013 #33
Post removed Post removed Jul 2013 #42
Did you miss Casey Anthony? lol Little Star Jul 2013 #43
Dig It!!! nt. winstars Jul 2013 #46
So gz is the only one allowed self defense? Faux pas Jul 2013 #47
No - that is why the issue of who threw the first blow is so important to this case. hack89 Jul 2013 #51
A god given right RGR375 Jul 2013 #54
the resident with the best view that night recanted on re-direct magical thyme Jul 2013 #55
Jonathan Good always said that Trayvon was on top hack89 Jul 2013 #57
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»In Zimmerman Trial, Prose...»Reply #6