EPTOn July 14 2013 07:16 Ubiquitousdichotomy wrote:
This jury is about to go full Casey Anthony
This jury is about to go full Casey Anthony
As a Floridian, I am sorry people here are dumb.
Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 410
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
Zenocide
United States92 Posts
As a Floridian, I am sorry people here are dumb. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
I guess ... | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On July 14 2013 07:18 Kaitlin wrote: In reverse. I am trying to understand why they need clarification of manslaughter unless they don't believe it was self-defense. It is clearly either one or the other. It's straight up manslaughter if the self-defense fails. Well, the manslaughter instructions do not directly state that self-defense is not manslaughter (or at least not in a very clear way). Maybe that's what they're hung up on. | ||
|
DeathProfessor
United States1052 Posts
| ||
|
Zenocide
United States92 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 14 2013 07:14 Vin{MBL} wrote: So disregarding the law is legal if a jury does it? The problem is that no one ever really knows why juries do what they do. Judges do err on the side of preserving jury verdicts if there is a reasonable basis to do so. | ||
|
Vin{MBL}
5185 Posts
On July 14 2013 07:20 LegalLord wrote: Well, the manslaughter instructions do not directly state that self-defense is not manslaughter (or at least not in a very clear way). Maybe that's what they're hung up on. I think manslaughter and self-defense are mutually exclusive. | ||
|
rasnj
United States1959 Posts
On July 14 2013 07:14 dAPhREAk wrote: if he is convicted this will go up on appeal easily. florida is conservative and the judges (like the legislators) wont want to overturn such a conviction though. i would be surprised to see it overturned. I'm confused. If judges see a farily obviously questionably judgement reached from a jury why wouldn't they want an appeal and possibly overturn the conviction? I knew patent law was fucked, but always thought criminal court was fair (in the sense of sticking to the written laws and preceedents). I must admit I'm getting a little sick at the possibility of GZ getting 20+ years for what seems to at most be a somewhat irresponsible or stupid action with no malicious intent. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On July 14 2013 07:21 Vin{MBL} wrote: I think manslaughter and self-defense are mutually exclusive. But does the jury get that? | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On July 14 2013 07:20 LegalLord wrote: Well, the manslaughter instructions do not directly state that self-defense is not manslaughter (or at least not in a very clear way). Maybe that's what they're hung up on. Yeah, I think the self-defense instructions follow manslaughter and are part of "justified", which the manslaughter lays out. Basically, it's manslaughter if this, this, and this, unless the killing is justified or excusable. Then it goes on to explain what is justified and excusable, under which self-defense is located. | ||
|
hp.Shell
United States2527 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45248 Posts
| ||
|
Vin{MBL}
5185 Posts
I hope so, because O' Mara stressed this point at the end of his closing statements. | ||
|
Zenocide
United States92 Posts
| ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On July 14 2013 07:20 DeathProfessor wrote: I can't believe that Manslaughter is a life sentence, I thought it was for situations where a fatality happened but it wasn't an intentional murder. How can it be worse than Murder 2? That makes no sense to me. Manslaughter is intentional, it's not accidental or negligent. The sentences are as harsh as they are because of the mandatory minimums being applied because a gun was used. Add to that, that Trayvon is under 18, so that's another enhancement. That's why the manslaughter sentence he's facing is so stiff. The gun and age. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On July 14 2013 07:21 rasnj wrote: I'm confused. If judges see a farily obviously questionably judgement reached from a jury why wouldn't they want an appeal and possibly overturn the conviction? I knew patent law was fucked, but always thought criminal court was fair (in the sense of sticking to the written laws and preceedents). I must admit I'm getting a little sick at the possibility of GZ getting 20+ years for what seems to at most be a somewhat irresponsible or stupid action with no malicious intent. appellate courts defer to the jury's decision. they dont question whether its the wrong decision per se, they question whether there was sufficient evidence for the jury to make the decision they made. basically, all inferences are made in support of agreeing with the jury (except on legal issues). they WANT to keep the jury decision intact. given that the state (lawmakers, judges, etc.) are highly conservative, you can expect a decision in favor of upholding a conviction. this is not to say that they wont do their job, but they are viewing the evidence through a veil of disbelief of the defendant. its human nature. putting on a black robe doesnt change people into unbiased individuals. i dont want to seem like zimmerman has no chance in hell, but if he is convicted, he has an uphill battle on appeal. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On July 14 2013 07:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: What's the actual difference, in terms of sentencing, between him being convicted of the stronger charge or the weaker one? Not much, it's minimum 30 to life, I believe for Murder 2, and like minimum of 20 or 25 for manslaughter. No parole in Florida. | ||
|
remedium
United States939 Posts
On July 14 2013 07:19 Kaitlin wrote: Ok, so I just saw on TV, that if they are going in order of the jury instructions, the manslaughter stuff comes before the self-defense, so that may be what is going on. If they are reading down the jury instruction, they haven't gotten to the self-defense consideration. I guess ... This makes too much sense. There is, after all, no point in discussing an affirmative defense if there is no underlying crime committed. | ||
|
AllHailTheDead
United States418 Posts
| ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On July 14 2013 07:24 Zenocide wrote: So basically the manslaughter argument is that he got out of his car which caused a death? An intentional act that leads to the death. Can only be the pulling of the trigger. Under these facts, it's either self-defense to not guilty, or at least manslaughter. If it's not self-defense, manslaughter has basically been stipulated. | ||
| ||
