|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On July 04 2013 02:18 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 01:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 03 2013 13:10 Sabu113 wrote:
Hearing more talk about manslaughter being the most viable option now. What would state need to prove to get manslaughter to stick? in addition to proving that there was no self defense beyond a reasonable doubt, the elements for manslaughter are: 7.7 MANSLAUGHTER
§ 782.07, Fla. Stat.
To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
Give 2a, 2b, or 2c depending upon allegations and proof.
2. a. (Defendant) intentionally committed an act or acts that
caused the death of (victim).
b. (Defendant) intentionally procured an act that caused
the death of (victim).
c. The death of (victim) was caused by the culpable negligence of (defendant).
The defendant cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide:
Negligence:
Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence.
Justifiable Homicide:
The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon the defendant, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which the defendant was at the time of the killing. § 782.02, Fla. Stat.
Excusable Homicide:
The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances:
1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or
2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or
3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.
§ 782.03, Fla. Stat.
Give only if 2a alleged and proved.
In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death.
Give only if 2b alleged and proved.
To “procure” means to persuade, induce, prevail upon or cause a person to do something.
128
Give only if 2c alleged and proved.
I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. The prosecution have nailed down the proof on the first element. The rest, I'm not so sure.
i am not sure that was a joke, but it made me laugh. yes, they have proven the first element. ;-)
On July 04 2013 02:16 crms wrote:
Going by what you just posted daphreak, it seems like quite a stretch given the evidence to find a reason to convict on any of those reasons. Culpable negligence is what they will go for I'm sure but with what I've seen of the trial, I can't imagine the prosecution would be able to make that charge stick.
If murder 2 or manslaughter (culpable negligence) are the only two options, I think Zimmerman walks.
re-reading the jury instructions, i dont think they are required to prove the culpable negligence. it is 2a, 2b or 2c,not 2a, 2b and 2c. i think they can show trayvon is dead, and that zimmerman intentionally committed an act that killed trayvon. self defense is the only issue. let me think on this a bit
|
On July 04 2013 02:22 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 02:18 ZasZ. wrote:On July 04 2013 01:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 03 2013 13:10 Sabu113 wrote:
Hearing more talk about manslaughter being the most viable option now. What would state need to prove to get manslaughter to stick? in addition to proving that there was no self defense beyond a reasonable doubt, the elements for manslaughter are: 7.7 MANSLAUGHTER
§ 782.07, Fla. Stat.
To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
Give 2a, 2b, or 2c depending upon allegations and proof.
2. a. (Defendant) intentionally committed an act or acts that
caused the death of (victim).
b. (Defendant) intentionally procured an act that caused
the death of (victim).
c. The death of (victim) was caused by the culpable negligence of (defendant).
The defendant cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide:
Negligence:
Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence.
Justifiable Homicide:
The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon the defendant, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which the defendant was at the time of the killing. § 782.02, Fla. Stat.
Excusable Homicide:
The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances:
1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or
2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or
3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.
§ 782.03, Fla. Stat.
Give only if 2a alleged and proved.
In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death.
Give only if 2b alleged and proved.
To “procure” means to persuade, induce, prevail upon or cause a person to do something.
128
Give only if 2c alleged and proved.
I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. The prosecution have nailed down the proof on the first element. The rest, I'm not so sure. i am not sure that was a joke, but it made me laugh. yes, they have proven the first element. ;-) Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 02:16 crms wrote:
Going by what you just posted daphreak, it seems like quite a stretch given the evidence to find a reason to convict on any of those reasons. Culpable negligence is what they will go for I'm sure but with what I've seen of the trial, I can't imagine the prosecution would be able to make that charge stick.
If murder 2 or manslaughter (culpable negligence) are the only two options, I think Zimmerman walks. re-reading the jury instructions, i dont think they are required to prove the culpable negligence. it is 2a, 2b or 2c,not 2a, 2b and 2c. i think they can show trayvon is dead, and that zimmerman intentionally committed an act that killed trayvon. self defense is the only issue. let me think on this a bit
Heh, yes it was a joke. I understand why it is in there, but it struck me as funny that it has to be proven by the state. It also struck me as funny that it will probably be the only thing that the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and the coroner did that work for them.
|
On July 04 2013 02:26 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 02:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 04 2013 02:18 ZasZ. wrote:On July 04 2013 01:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 03 2013 13:10 Sabu113 wrote:
Hearing more talk about manslaughter being the most viable option now. What would state need to prove to get manslaughter to stick? in addition to proving that there was no self defense beyond a reasonable doubt, the elements for manslaughter are: 7.7 MANSLAUGHTER
§ 782.07, Fla. Stat.
To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
Give 2a, 2b, or 2c depending upon allegations and proof.
2. a. (Defendant) intentionally committed an act or acts that
caused the death of (victim).
b. (Defendant) intentionally procured an act that caused
the death of (victim).
c. The death of (victim) was caused by the culpable negligence of (defendant).
The defendant cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide:
Negligence:
Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence.
Justifiable Homicide:
The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon the defendant, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which the defendant was at the time of the killing. § 782.02, Fla. Stat.
Excusable Homicide:
The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances:
1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or
2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or
3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.
§ 782.03, Fla. Stat.
Give only if 2a alleged and proved.
In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death.
Give only if 2b alleged and proved.
To “procure” means to persuade, induce, prevail upon or cause a person to do something.
128
Give only if 2c alleged and proved.
I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. The prosecution have nailed down the proof on the first element. The rest, I'm not so sure. i am not sure that was a joke, but it made me laugh. yes, they have proven the first element. ;-) On July 04 2013 02:16 crms wrote:
Going by what you just posted daphreak, it seems like quite a stretch given the evidence to find a reason to convict on any of those reasons. Culpable negligence is what they will go for I'm sure but with what I've seen of the trial, I can't imagine the prosecution would be able to make that charge stick.
If murder 2 or manslaughter (culpable negligence) are the only two options, I think Zimmerman walks. re-reading the jury instructions, i dont think they are required to prove the culpable negligence. it is 2a, 2b or 2c,not 2a, 2b and 2c. i think they can show trayvon is dead, and that zimmerman intentionally committed an act that killed trayvon. self defense is the only issue. let me think on this a bit Heh, yes it was a joke. I understand why it is in there, but it struck me as funny that it has to be proven by the state. It also struck me as funny that it will probably be the only thing that the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and the coroner did that work for them.
note to all serial killers: hide the body well. no body, no proof of death. =)
|
On July 04 2013 02:29 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 02:26 ZasZ. wrote:On July 04 2013 02:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 04 2013 02:18 ZasZ. wrote:On July 04 2013 01:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 03 2013 13:10 Sabu113 wrote:
Hearing more talk about manslaughter being the most viable option now. What would state need to prove to get manslaughter to stick? in addition to proving that there was no self defense beyond a reasonable doubt, the elements for manslaughter are: 7.7 MANSLAUGHTER
§ 782.07, Fla. Stat.
To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
Give 2a, 2b, or 2c depending upon allegations and proof.
2. a. (Defendant) intentionally committed an act or acts that
caused the death of (victim).
b. (Defendant) intentionally procured an act that caused
the death of (victim).
c. The death of (victim) was caused by the culpable negligence of (defendant).
The defendant cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide:
Negligence:
Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence.
Justifiable Homicide:
The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon the defendant, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which the defendant was at the time of the killing. § 782.02, Fla. Stat.
Excusable Homicide:
The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances:
1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or
2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or
3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.
§ 782.03, Fla. Stat.
Give only if 2a alleged and proved.
In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death.
Give only if 2b alleged and proved.
To “procure” means to persuade, induce, prevail upon or cause a person to do something.
128
Give only if 2c alleged and proved.
I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. The prosecution have nailed down the proof on the first element. The rest, I'm not so sure. i am not sure that was a joke, but it made me laugh. yes, they have proven the first element. ;-) On July 04 2013 02:16 crms wrote:
Going by what you just posted daphreak, it seems like quite a stretch given the evidence to find a reason to convict on any of those reasons. Culpable negligence is what they will go for I'm sure but with what I've seen of the trial, I can't imagine the prosecution would be able to make that charge stick.
If murder 2 or manslaughter (culpable negligence) are the only two options, I think Zimmerman walks. re-reading the jury instructions, i dont think they are required to prove the culpable negligence. it is 2a, 2b or 2c,not 2a, 2b and 2c. i think they can show trayvon is dead, and that zimmerman intentionally committed an act that killed trayvon. self defense is the only issue. let me think on this a bit Heh, yes it was a joke. I understand why it is in there, but it struck me as funny that it has to be proven by the state. It also struck me as funny that it will probably be the only thing that the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and the coroner did that work for them. note to all serial killers: hide the body well. no body, no proof of death. =)
My teacher in civil procedure always talked about proving murders with no bodies and how it was super challenging, if not impossible. Even if you could confirm the person was dead, but didn't have the body to prove it. It is that classic problem, that which everyone knows to be true may be impossible to prove to the standards of the Court.
|
okay, looking at the manslaughter instruction, i am pretty sure that it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt at this point EXCEPT for the justifiable act aspect:
1. trayvon is dead
for the second element, the prosecutor would most likely rely on 2(a)
2(a). zimmerman intentionally shot trayvon. it is irrelevant whether he intended to kill trayvon; the fact that he intended to shoot was enough to prove this element.
Give only if 2a alleged and proved.
In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death.
however, zimmerman is alleging that the "intentional act" of shooting travyon was a justified act (i.e., self defense). so, the state will have to prove no self defense beyond a reasonable doubt and that will negate the "intentional act"/element two.
hope that makes sense.
|
On July 04 2013 02:29 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 02:26 ZasZ. wrote:On July 04 2013 02:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 04 2013 02:18 ZasZ. wrote:On July 04 2013 01:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 03 2013 13:10 Sabu113 wrote:
Hearing more talk about manslaughter being the most viable option now. What would state need to prove to get manslaughter to stick? in addition to proving that there was no self defense beyond a reasonable doubt, the elements for manslaughter are: 7.7 MANSLAUGHTER
§ 782.07, Fla. Stat.
To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
Give 2a, 2b, or 2c depending upon allegations and proof.
2. a. (Defendant) intentionally committed an act or acts that
caused the death of (victim).
b. (Defendant) intentionally procured an act that caused
the death of (victim).
c. The death of (victim) was caused by the culpable negligence of (defendant).
The defendant cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide:
Negligence:
Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence.
Justifiable Homicide:
The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon the defendant, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which the defendant was at the time of the killing. § 782.02, Fla. Stat.
Excusable Homicide:
The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances:
1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or
2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or
3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.
§ 782.03, Fla. Stat.
Give only if 2a alleged and proved.
In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death.
Give only if 2b alleged and proved.
To “procure” means to persuade, induce, prevail upon or cause a person to do something.
128
Give only if 2c alleged and proved.
I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. The prosecution have nailed down the proof on the first element. The rest, I'm not so sure. i am not sure that was a joke, but it made me laugh. yes, they have proven the first element. ;-) On July 04 2013 02:16 crms wrote:
Going by what you just posted daphreak, it seems like quite a stretch given the evidence to find a reason to convict on any of those reasons. Culpable negligence is what they will go for I'm sure but with what I've seen of the trial, I can't imagine the prosecution would be able to make that charge stick.
If murder 2 or manslaughter (culpable negligence) are the only two options, I think Zimmerman walks. re-reading the jury instructions, i dont think they are required to prove the culpable negligence. it is 2a, 2b or 2c,not 2a, 2b and 2c. i think they can show trayvon is dead, and that zimmerman intentionally committed an act that killed trayvon. self defense is the only issue. let me think on this a bit Heh, yes it was a joke. I understand why it is in there, but it struck me as funny that it has to be proven by the state. It also struck me as funny that it will probably be the only thing that the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and the coroner did that work for them. note to all serial killers: hide the body well. no body, no proof of death. =)
There have recently been convictions where no body has been found. It was significant because of the reason you stated, but I know it has happened.
Anyways, I think it's safe to say in this case that it's either self-defense or manslaughter. Then, a question of whether the additional element(s) of murder 2 are proven, which they likely aren't or won't be. There really isn't any "middle ground" between self-defense and manslaughter in this case.
|
On July 04 2013 02:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 02:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 04 2013 02:26 ZasZ. wrote:On July 04 2013 02:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 04 2013 02:18 ZasZ. wrote:On July 04 2013 01:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 03 2013 13:10 Sabu113 wrote:
Hearing more talk about manslaughter being the most viable option now. What would state need to prove to get manslaughter to stick? in addition to proving that there was no self defense beyond a reasonable doubt, the elements for manslaughter are: 7.7 MANSLAUGHTER
§ 782.07, Fla. Stat.
To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
Give 2a, 2b, or 2c depending upon allegations and proof.
2. a. (Defendant) intentionally committed an act or acts that
caused the death of (victim).
b. (Defendant) intentionally procured an act that caused
the death of (victim).
c. The death of (victim) was caused by the culpable negligence of (defendant).
The defendant cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide:
Negligence:
Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence.
Justifiable Homicide:
The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon the defendant, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which the defendant was at the time of the killing. § 782.02, Fla. Stat.
Excusable Homicide:
The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances:
1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or
2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or
3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.
§ 782.03, Fla. Stat.
Give only if 2a alleged and proved.
In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death.
Give only if 2b alleged and proved.
To “procure” means to persuade, induce, prevail upon or cause a person to do something.
128
Give only if 2c alleged and proved.
I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. The prosecution have nailed down the proof on the first element. The rest, I'm not so sure. i am not sure that was a joke, but it made me laugh. yes, they have proven the first element. ;-) On July 04 2013 02:16 crms wrote:
Going by what you just posted daphreak, it seems like quite a stretch given the evidence to find a reason to convict on any of those reasons. Culpable negligence is what they will go for I'm sure but with what I've seen of the trial, I can't imagine the prosecution would be able to make that charge stick.
If murder 2 or manslaughter (culpable negligence) are the only two options, I think Zimmerman walks. re-reading the jury instructions, i dont think they are required to prove the culpable negligence. it is 2a, 2b or 2c,not 2a, 2b and 2c. i think they can show trayvon is dead, and that zimmerman intentionally committed an act that killed trayvon. self defense is the only issue. let me think on this a bit Heh, yes it was a joke. I understand why it is in there, but it struck me as funny that it has to be proven by the state. It also struck me as funny that it will probably be the only thing that the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and the coroner did that work for them. note to all serial killers: hide the body well. no body, no proof of death. =) My teacher in civil procedure always talked about proving murders with no bodies and how it was super challenging, if not impossible. Even if you could confirm the person was dead, but didn't have the body to prove it. It is that classic problem, that which everyone knows to be true may be impossible to prove to the standards of the Court.
yep. i think some states have presumptions such as "if the person is missing for X number of years, they are presumed dead." i recall a case where somebody was convicted of murder without a body and then the person later showed up alive. that may have been an urban legend though.
|
Lawyers, does the jury get the transcripts of testimony in the jury room or do they have to remember it ?
|
On July 04 2013 02:43 Kaitlin wrote:
Lawyers, does the jury get the transcripts of testimony in the jury room or do they have to remember it ?
generally, no, but they can request that transcripts be read and then the judge and lawyers will discuss what to do.
|
yo judge! if you hadnt fucked up on the law in the first instance, Crump would have been deposed during the discovery process. but no, they had to run off to the court of appeal to reverse your ass.
i love how judges think.
|
On July 04 2013 02:29 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 02:26 ZasZ. wrote:On July 04 2013 02:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 04 2013 02:18 ZasZ. wrote:On July 04 2013 01:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 03 2013 13:10 Sabu113 wrote:
Hearing more talk about manslaughter being the most viable option now. What would state need to prove to get manslaughter to stick? in addition to proving that there was no self defense beyond a reasonable doubt, the elements for manslaughter are: 7.7 MANSLAUGHTER
§ 782.07, Fla. Stat.
To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
Give 2a, 2b, or 2c depending upon allegations and proof.
2. a. (Defendant) intentionally committed an act or acts that
caused the death of (victim).
b. (Defendant) intentionally procured an act that caused
the death of (victim).
c. The death of (victim) was caused by the culpable negligence of (defendant).
The defendant cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide:
Negligence:
Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence.
Justifiable Homicide:
The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon the defendant, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which the defendant was at the time of the killing. § 782.02, Fla. Stat.
Excusable Homicide:
The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances:
1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or
2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or
3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.
§ 782.03, Fla. Stat.
Give only if 2a alleged and proved.
In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death.
Give only if 2b alleged and proved.
To “procure” means to persuade, induce, prevail upon or cause a person to do something.
128
Give only if 2c alleged and proved.
I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. The prosecution have nailed down the proof on the first element. The rest, I'm not so sure. i am not sure that was a joke, but it made me laugh. yes, they have proven the first element. ;-) On July 04 2013 02:16 crms wrote:
Going by what you just posted daphreak, it seems like quite a stretch given the evidence to find a reason to convict on any of those reasons. Culpable negligence is what they will go for I'm sure but with what I've seen of the trial, I can't imagine the prosecution would be able to make that charge stick.
If murder 2 or manslaughter (culpable negligence) are the only two options, I think Zimmerman walks. re-reading the jury instructions, i dont think they are required to prove the culpable negligence. it is 2a, 2b or 2c,not 2a, 2b and 2c. i think they can show trayvon is dead, and that zimmerman intentionally committed an act that killed trayvon. self defense is the only issue. let me think on this a bit Heh, yes it was a joke. I understand why it is in there, but it struck me as funny that it has to be proven by the state. It also struck me as funny that it will probably be the only thing that the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and the coroner did that work for them. note to all serial killers: hide the body well. no body, no proof of death. =)
Anyone who watches Breaking Bad knows this! There are two types of murderers: those who are caught and those who leave nothing behind...including witnesses and bodies.
|
On July 04 2013 02:55 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 02:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 04 2013 02:26 ZasZ. wrote:On July 04 2013 02:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 04 2013 02:18 ZasZ. wrote:On July 04 2013 01:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 03 2013 13:10 Sabu113 wrote:
Hearing more talk about manslaughter being the most viable option now. What would state need to prove to get manslaughter to stick? in addition to proving that there was no self defense beyond a reasonable doubt, the elements for manslaughter are: 7.7 MANSLAUGHTER
§ 782.07, Fla. Stat.
To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
Give 2a, 2b, or 2c depending upon allegations and proof.
2. a. (Defendant) intentionally committed an act or acts that
caused the death of (victim).
b. (Defendant) intentionally procured an act that caused
the death of (victim).
c. The death of (victim) was caused by the culpable negligence of (defendant).
The defendant cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide:
Negligence:
Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence.
Justifiable Homicide:
The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon the defendant, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which the defendant was at the time of the killing. § 782.02, Fla. Stat.
Excusable Homicide:
The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances:
1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or
2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or
3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.
§ 782.03, Fla. Stat.
Give only if 2a alleged and proved.
In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death.
Give only if 2b alleged and proved.
To “procure” means to persuade, induce, prevail upon or cause a person to do something.
128
Give only if 2c alleged and proved.
I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. The prosecution have nailed down the proof on the first element. The rest, I'm not so sure. i am not sure that was a joke, but it made me laugh. yes, they have proven the first element. ;-) On July 04 2013 02:16 crms wrote:
Going by what you just posted daphreak, it seems like quite a stretch given the evidence to find a reason to convict on any of those reasons. Culpable negligence is what they will go for I'm sure but with what I've seen of the trial, I can't imagine the prosecution would be able to make that charge stick.
If murder 2 or manslaughter (culpable negligence) are the only two options, I think Zimmerman walks. re-reading the jury instructions, i dont think they are required to prove the culpable negligence. it is 2a, 2b or 2c,not 2a, 2b and 2c. i think they can show trayvon is dead, and that zimmerman intentionally committed an act that killed trayvon. self defense is the only issue. let me think on this a bit Heh, yes it was a joke. I understand why it is in there, but it struck me as funny that it has to be proven by the state. It also struck me as funny that it will probably be the only thing that the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and the coroner did that work for them. note to all serial killers: hide the body well. no body, no proof of death. =) Anyone who watches Breaking Bad knows this! There are two types of murderers: those who are caught and those who leave nothing behind...including witnesses and bodies.
Breaking Bad has taught me that I need a large barrel of acid and all problems can be solved. Also, never put that in the tub.
|
Why are we going through this DNA stuff? What does this have to do with it? We know Zimmerman killed him, he readily admits it, what purpose does proving anything dealing with DNA serve?
|
On July 04 2013 03:15 Felnarion wrote:
Why are we going through this DNA stuff? What does this have to do with it? We know Zimmerman killed him, he readily admits it, what purpose does proving anything dealing with DNA serve?
they want to show trayvon's DNA was not on the gun (i.e., he didnt touch it). same thing as the fingerprint lady: trayvon's fingerprints werent on the gun. marginal relevance at best since zimmerman doesnt say trayvon grabbed the gun, he said trayvon grabbed for the gun.
|
I think to say there was no DNA on trayvon from Zimmerman. They are just showing more of the fact that none of zimmerman's blood was found on trayvons hands.
|
So the judge wants the State to finish up today. I wonder if it will actually happen.
|
I am shocked she would refuse to allow defense proper time because she is impatient. This judge has made some crazy statements.
|
On July 04 2013 03:17 jeremycafe wrote:
I think to say there was no DNA on trayvon from Zimmerman. They are just showing more of the fact that none of zimmerman's blood was found on trayvons hands.
I'm pretty sure you can break a guy's nose without getting blood on your hands, but I really don't know. I'm not sure what, exactly, that proves.
|
On July 04 2013 03:20 jeremycafe wrote:
I am shocked she would refuse to allow defense proper time because she is impatient. This judge has made some crazy statements.
to be fair, she is concerned about the jury. they are sequestered. she doesnt want to keep them sequestered for more time than is necessary because its a huge burden on them. she should just force crump to show up for deposition tomorrow. the guy is going to court as much as he can, its apparent he has no life or job outside of this case currently.
|
On July 04 2013 03:23 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 03:17 jeremycafe wrote:
I think to say there was no DNA on trayvon from Zimmerman. They are just showing more of the fact that none of zimmerman's blood was found on trayvons hands. I'm pretty sure you can break a guy's nose without getting blood on your hands, but I really don't know. I'm not sure what, exactly, that proves.
You can hit someone in the nose, and the blood comes out at some point in the future.
Not even unlikely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
