excellent read - New Yorker, "...Stand Whose Ground?"

[spookyturtle 9,465]

The 911 dispatcher asked specifically if he was following him, he said yeah. She said we don't need you to do that. If I was following a suspicious person and 911 said we don't need you to do that, I'd stop. But in all honesty, I wouldn't follow someone who is aware of my presense in the first place.

Regardless, no laws were broken. Whether he should or shouldn't have followed really isn't an issue, IMO. If you think it is, then I would guess that logically you would think that TM should have run straight home and called 911 to report the strange man following him.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Zimmermann understood the dispatcher as telling him NOT to follow Martin. His written statement to police is clear on that point.

"The dispatch told me not to follow the suspect & that an officer was in route. As I headed back to my vehicle..."

why are all of you stuck on that. Following someone is not illegal and does not give someone the right to assault you.

[Dan and Judy 614]

Criminal Law

571. Voluntary Manslaughter: Imperfect Self-Defense - Lesser Included Offense

A killing that would otherwise be murder is reduced to voluntary manslaughter if the defendant killed a person because (he/she) acted in (imperfect self-defense/ [or] imperfect defense of another).

If you conclude the defendant acted in complete (self-defense/ [or] defense of another), (his/her) action was lawful and you must find (him/her) not guilty of any crime. The difference between complete (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) and (imperfect self-defense/ [or] imperfect defense of another) depends on whether the defendant's belief in the need to use deadly force was reasonable.

The defendant acted in (imperfect self-defense/ [or] imperfect defense of another) if:

1. The defendant actually believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/

<insert name of third party>

) was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury;

AND

2. The defendant actually believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against the danger;

BUT

3. At least one of those beliefs was unreasonable.

Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how likely the harm is believed to be.

[Great bodily injury means significant or substantial physical injury. It is an injury that is greater than minor or moderate harm.]

http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/571.html

Justia > Criminal Law > California Criminal Jury Instructions > Homicide > 571. Voluntary Manslaughter: Imperfect Self-Defense - Lesser Included Offense

this is from your link.

Wouldn't it be preferrable to quote Florida law?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What does the prosecution have to prove in order to get a manslaughter verdict?

I posted it earlier, but I can't remember which thread or post.

The prosecution needs only to convince the jury that the defendant's claim that he was in fear of his life was unreasonable, or that his use of lethal force was unnecessary (unreasonable). There was enough evidence from Zimmerman's call to the police that night to charge him with manslaughter, given what seems near impossible to figure out how the altercation took place (conflicting eye-witness testimony). We know a fight took place and we know Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. Beyond that, the rest is cloudy, conflicting, or unsubstantial. So, not enough evidence to convict him of 2nd degree murder, but a lack of evidence by the defense that overshadows GZ's pursuit of an unarmed teenager who ran to get away from him.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

I posted it earlier, but I can't remember which thread or post.

The prosecution needs only to convince the jury that the defendant's claim that he was in fear of his life was unreasonable, or that his use of lethal force was unnecessary (unreasonable). There was enough evidence from Zimmerman's call to the police that night to charge him with manslaughter, given what seems near impossible to figure out how the altercation took place (conflicting eye-witness testimony). We know a fight took place and we know Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. Beyond that, the rest is cloudy, conflicting, or unsubstantial. So, not enough evidence to convict him of 2nd degree murder, but a lack of evidence by the defense that overshadows GZ's pursuit of an unarmed teenager who ran to get away from him.

Actually it's fear of great bodily harm too, not just fear for his life. An important difference.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What does the prosecution have to prove in order to get a manslaughter verdict?

Think it comes down to either that the use of deadly force was disproportionate and/or that Zimmermann did not reasonably fear for his life or great bodily harm.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

why are all of you stuck on that. Following someone is not illegal and does not give someone the right to assault you.

Strawman argument - GZ's behavior (actually both of their behavior that night leading up to the altercation is relevant in determining culpability of the outcome). Look it up, if you don't understand how the court determines culpability in cases like this.

Pure speculation - in the court of law, all parties are innocent until proven guilty, including dead, unarmed, teenage boys who happen to be black. Perhaps you should contemplate you're understanding of equal protection under the law.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

TM is not on trial. GZ is.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

why are all of you stuck on that. Following someone is not illegal and does not give someone the right to assault you.

Nobody is saying that following someone is illegal. And nobody is saying that it would give someone the right to assault another. But then, there's nothing in evidence that supports the notion that Martin assaulted Zimmermann for having followed him. Why are you stuck on that?

Edited July 10, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog

[Karee 4,190]

Pure speculation - in the court of law, all parties are innocent until proven guilty, including dead, unarmed, teenage boys who happen to be black. Perhaps you should contemplate you're understanding of equal protection under the law.

Dead people have equal protection under the law?

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Nobody is saying that following someone is illegal. And nobody is saying that it would give someone the right to assault another. But then, there's nothing in evidence that supports the notion that Martin assaulted Zimmermann for having followed him. Why are you stuck on that?

Why did TM assault GZ?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

TM is not on trial. GZ is.

TM's alleged actions during his altercation with GZ are in question and Nature Boy continues to speculate that TM assaulted GZ while trying to pass it off as factual. Know one knows for sure what happened during the altercation, except Martin (who is dead), and GZ. Martin and his family still have rights as victims. He was shot and killed (victim) and deserves the same rights of presumed innocent as the person who shot and killed him. If he didn't, then equal protection under the law has been twisted to favor armed citizens over unarmed citizens.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Why did TM assault GZ?

GZ either initiated the physical attack with an attack of his own (a push, a punch, etc) or TM initiated the attack because he was being followed.

Unfortunately, neither can be proven. All that's known is a physical altercation eventually happened.

[Dan and Judy 614]

In July 2007, Maryland's intermediate appellate court confirmed the definition of imperfect self defense. When the defendant convinces the jury of such a defense, s/he averts a murder conviction and instead gets a voluntary manslaughter conviction. The case is In re: Julianna B., __ Md. App. _ (July 3, 2007). As confirmed by In re: Julianna B., the 1984 Faulkner ruling on the subject from Maryland's highest court still holds:

"Logically, a defendant who commits a homicide while honestly, though unreasonably, believing that he is threatened with death or serious bodily harm, does not act with malice.... Therefore, as we see it, when evidence is presented showing the defendant’s subjective belief that the use of force was necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm, the defendant is entitled to a proper instruction on imperfect self defense. A proper instruction when such evidence is present would enable the jury to reach one of several verdicts: (1) if the jury concluded the defendant did not have a subjective belief that the use of deadly force was necessary, its verdict would be murder; (2) if the jury concluded that the defendant had a reasonable subjective belief, its verdict would be not guilty; and (3) if the jury concluded that the defendant honestly believed that the use of force was necessary, but that this subjective belief was unreasonable under the circumstances, then its verdict would be guilty of voluntary manslaughter." State v. Faulkner, 301 Md. 482, 500-01 (1984).

So many times, homicides result from matters going into a totally avoidable tailspin. Often alcohol is the culprit. Sometimes the scenario starts with an impromptu summertime gathering of a few friends or neighbors after a liquor store run, followed by ugly tongues loosened by alcohol, followed by fistfights escalated by adding converted or conventional weapons to the mix. Such situations sadden me, and often make me sick to my stomach, initially. Then, I dig right in, and do all I can to win for my client, whether or not I think my client has any legal or personal culpability. In doing so, I look for all possible defenses, and welcome the availability of imperfect self defense among the many other defenses against criminal accusations. Jon Katz.

http://katzjustice.com/justiceblog/archives/668-imperfect-self-defense-averts-a-murder-conviction-and-gets-a-manslaughter-conviction-maryland..html

Maryland law?

[Karee 4,190]

Unfortunately, neither can be proven. All that's known is a physical altercation eventually happened.

Why is that unfortunate?