The Zimmerman jury has asked the court for a clarification on the manslaughter charge. That means that they are interested in it. According to ABC News, a manslaughter conviction can bring a 30-year sentence, although I doubt it would in this case.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
31 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
Florida has mandatory minimums, which was discussed in the hearing regarding jury instructions.
If convicted of manslaughter, Zimmerman will get mimimum 25 years.
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/breaking-down-charges-and-sentences-zimmerman-faci/nYpC6/
Manslaughter
The state must prove Zimmerman committed an act that caused death.
If Zimmerman is convicted of manslaughter with a firearm, he could be sentenced to a maximum of 30 years in prison.
Under the 10-20-Life Law, a manslaughter conviction means Zimmerman will have to serve a minimum of 25 years in prison and face a maximum of life in prison.
It’s crazy, but you appear to be right.
of “justice.”
What a farce.
Tragicomedy is not dead.
It lives on in the PermaGov-controlled courts.
Bet on it.
The tragicomic hero/comedian? Well…I guess there isn’t one.
But there was a tragicomic heroine/comedienne.
Bet on that as well.
She had me in stitches!!!
In stitches!!!
AG
I’m not sure what is a “PermaGov”-controlled court, but I’m pretty certain that I prefer it over a Privately-controlled court.
No difference. None at all.
AG
It doesn’t mean they are interested in it. You ever been on a jury?
It can mean several things.
Also, and IANAL but I do know that judges clarifying what something means is a fast way to a miss trial, so the judge will probably just repeat the same stuff anyways. It’s dangerous ground for the judge and prosecution.
All that said I’ve always stood by manslaughter being the most likely outcome, walking second. I just don’t think there is much to be gained in reading the tea leaves right now. A jury is a famously screwed up thing, and trying to make heads or tails of what they are thinking is some serious predicting the weather with chicken guts.
Certainly it is possible that every last juror is a nitwit or that they just made a mistake and appointed a nitwit as foreperson. But assuming that is not the case, then the fact they they are asking about the elements of the crimes would seem to be a clear indication that they have reached unanimity on the Stand Your Ground defense and decided to reject it. Again it is possible that one or more jurors are such complete idiots that do not recognize that the logical way to approach deliberation is to address and resolve the self defense question first. If they can’t agree that Zimmerman is not entitled to the defense then they have no reason to be considering the elements of the crimes charged
Stand Your Ground was not cited as a defense, so there is no reason for the jury to make a decision about it. It’s irrelevant to the trial.
I’m not sure what you mean by saying that Stand Your Ground wasn’t cited as a defense. It’s part of self-defense in Florida, and this certainly was a self-defense case. In any event, I think the point holds – if the jury is doing its job more or less properly, they wouldn’t get to the question of whether it’s manslaughter or murder 2 unless they decided he didn’t act in self defense.
That said, the point that juries are strange creatures, also made above, is valid as well, so it doesn’t necessarily mean a thing.
As far as I understand, SYG didn’t really change what constitutes self-defense.
Breaking News Now!
Reports of a coming verdict.
Not guilty.
jesus fucking christ
Fucking Florida. Bring on global warming.
Good grief.
I hope the family sues – the burden of proof is lower.
they will. Their civil suit is already in place, and Zimmerman will have to testify. New evidence could emerge from his testimony which could result in re-opening the case. Not likely to happen.
More importantly, I really hope this becomes an opportunity to challenge the ridiculous self-defense and stand your ground laws. At the very least, it should be required that persons who commit murder and claim self-defense or SYG take the stand and be subject to cross examination.
The real question is whether we want to have any laws that mean anything at all when it comes to murder. This is a recipe for anarchy.
It is now open season in Florida using a Stand Your Ground dodge, which is a stronger defense than what the defense in this trial used.
The delay in picking him up was the tell to how Southern justice works in Florida now.
That would be a gross misunderstanding of this case.
Jeralyn at Talkleft has provided excellent coverage on the facts and law. That facts just weren’t there for a conviction.
Not so. Manslaughter was easily within reach.
People get convicted of manslaughter for far less serious things than stalking an unarmed kid after being order not to.
Manslaughter required a rejection of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury determined that the bar for that was too high.
Following someone does not equal stalking. Had he stalked Martin, he would have drawn his gun when he followed him and not sustained any injury.
I intensely dislike the laws that let any “law abiding citizen” to carry/own guns. That leads to a large number of accidents and mishaps every year. Many victims younger than Martin are shot and die and nobody serves any time for their deaths.
The facts weren’t there for a conviction because the police did not collect the evidence. Zimmerman was sorta one of them. The police also did not initially charge him with anything. He walked free from the beginning.
Both Marcy Wheeler and Jessalyn Radack are right, the prosecution did not have the facts and the law in the case. I fault the prosecution on the points of not having the law. Emotional grandstanding in the closing statements IMO was a cover for prosecutorial reluctance in this case. (But I’m willing to reconsider that current opinion.)
Agree that the police were hasty in not detaining Zimmerman before completing the investigation. Disagree that they didn’t collect all the available facts.
I can only imagine the gleeful wringing of hands by those now waiting for “the riots”.
Fox News, no doubt, is poised to report every upset person as proof of their prescience.
I’ll bet the good ole boys are getting out their ammo and calling the authorities to volunteer their services.
And why not? They can just claim they were “threatened” and tussle their hair a little and they’re good to go.
Time for me to beg off social media. I’ve already seen enough celebration to send my blood pressure through the roof. The stupid…. it burns…..
Meanwhile:
Sickening.
Trayvon Martin=2013’s Emmitt Till
complete with the All-White Jury
In one of two juries on which I served, one of the holdouts for acquittal in a criminal case against a black female defendant was an African-American woman. A second African-American woman was more inclined to go with guilty but was persuaded to go with not guilty.
So, please don’t make assumptions based on your prejudices.