The Sanford Florida incident....

[mnealtx]

You watch; the conspiranoiacs are going to call this intentional grounding.

I think the prosecution felt like they needed to one-up the knock-knock joke, and didn't have anything to do it with but their case.

[RoyGBiv]

I think the prosecution felt like they needed to one-up the knock-knock joke, and didn't have anything to do it with but their case.

Bazinga!

[BaiHu]

As has been made abundantly clear, IANAL, but why did the judge question Zman and overrule the objections of his lawyers regarding his right to remain silent?

This is the exact opposite of Lois Lerner. In her case, she says she's not guilty and then pleads the 5th-that failed and made server to me. In his case he pleads the 5th and she makes him answer questions? Questions, that from my limited understanding, would be answered if she just waited for the trial to finish, no?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[BaiHu]

I guess my main question is this: If you can't get him for murder 2 and that, I assume, means self-defense was proven
Then, if there is any logic in the law (or perhaps a logic that I don't understand), how could you offer up manslaughter when you have to prove that it wasn't self-defense, right

How logic works in my mind:

If murder 2, then 25 to life.
If self-defense, then acquitted.
If manslaughter w/firearm, then 25-30.
If self-defense, then acquitted.
If self-defense acquits murder 2, then it also acquits manslaughter.

Obviously, IANAL, but am I still biffed or are they (jury, lawyers, judge) biffed??

[TR675]

He may be convicted of manslaughter if the jury rejects the self-defense case but believes there is reasonable doubt about whether he acted with hate and ill-will, or malicious intent, or a hell-bound heart, or spite or Sprite or whatever wording is required by the Florida statute codifying murder 2.

ETA: To be more accurate, remember that there are multiple elements that both murder 2 and manslaughter share. Murder 2 just has more elements. The jury has to find each element beyond a reasonable doubt. If they find some but not all of the murder 2 elements, and all of the manslaughter elements, and reject the self-defense argument, then he can be convicted of manslaughter.

[BaiHu]

He may be convicted of manslaughter if the jury rejects the self-defense case but believes there is reasonable doubt about whether he acted with hate and ill-will, or malicious intent, or a hell-bound heart, or spite or Sprite or whatever wording is required by the Florida statute codifying murder 2.

But if it's self-defense, then 'hate and ill-will, or malicious intent,' should have nothing to do with it. How hatred doesn't come into self-defense is beyond me. If someone is trying to kill me, then I probably don't like that person

Intent I understand, but they haven't proved that Zman intended on finding someone to kill that night.

Why this isn't a straight up self-defense or not case is what is really confounding me.

[RoyGBiv]

Why this isn't a straight up self-defense or not case is what is really confounding me.

Here's my conspiracy-theory....

The good people of Florida were frothing at the bit for blood. A stand your ground hearing was skipped, because if Z got off without at least a trial, where all the facts could be seen on the TV, there would be blood in the streets and politicos out of jobs. A trial, even with an acquittal, saves politicians and reduces rioting.

[ford.304]

But if it's self-defense, then 'hate and ill-will, or malicious intent,' should have nothing to do with it. How hatred doesn't come into self-defense is beyond me. If someone is trying to kill me, then I probably don't like that person

Not exactly, in a legal sense anyway.

Murder 2 is "Z tracked down M with intent to do something bad to him, started a fight and escalated to shooting intentionally." The fact that narrative in no way matches the facts of the case may be causing some of your problem.

Manslaughter would be something along the lines of "We believe Z got into a fight pretty much as he said, but self defense wasn't justified. He did not have an intent to kill M, but panicked and reacted in a manner that was not justified by self defense." For example, if they don't believe that he truly feared for his life, or if it was unreasonable for him to do so in this situation. If they don't believe that getting your head beaten into the sidewalk is deadly force, and don't believe Z when he says that M went for his gun.

The line between murder 2 and manslaughter is the standard self defense line "not shoot to kill, shoot to stop."

Manslaughter versus self-defense, to me, seems to be a case where the defendant might have thought he was using reasonable force to stop a threat, but the jury disagreed that the level of force used was reasonable. This case is a good example of the lines around that, where the prosecution could argue that the two were on equal footing in a nonlethal fistfight, and Z escalated this to a lethal fight. The defense can argue that M was the one who escalating things by pinning Z, bashing his head on the sidewalk, and going for the gun.

[BaiHu]

ford,

thanks for the explanation and that is how I understand it and I think you nailed it when you said my confusion is that I somehow have heard the facts of the case unlike any other news outlet, politician or judge

However, if you drop the murder 2 charge on the basis of self-defense, doesn't that automatically negate manslaughter? I'd assume that is what has to be the instructions given to the jury, no??

[Shellback]

Illustrated nicely.