|
Brisco804 -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/14/2013 8:33:36 AM)
|
The Florida statute on manslaughter:
(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Once Self-defense is established as justification for absolution on the 2nd degree murder charge, it is no longer possible to legally find someone guilty of Manslaughter. There are no varying degrees of self-defense. Once it is established that there is "lawful justification' THERE IS NO MANSLAUGHTER.
The weak-kneed crybaby nature of our society demands that we charge with the highest possible crime that prosecutors can get away with, and then try to convince a jury of a compromise. This is called "splitting the baby" in the legal world, but the term is completely misapplied. In the bible, 2 mothers came before King Solomon. Both had recently given birth. The plaintiff accused the defendant of stealing her baby after her own had been found dead in its crib. The defendant claimed that the baby in question was the one she had birthed. During the trial, it became obvious that thee was a great deal of animosity between the two women so Solomon saw an opportunity. He said that he would have his men split the baby in half and each would take home half.
The defendant thanked Solomon for his wisdom and indicated that this would be an acceptable outcome. The plaintiff fell to her knees sobbing and immediately recanted her story. She professed that she had lied and made the story up. Solomon gave the baby to the plaintiff and had the defendant executed. This was NOT a compromise decision. It was a ploy to get at the truth, deliver justice, and punish the wicked.
Those are three separate concepts. In the case of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, I don't believe either are wicked. TM certainly had some character issues and was making a lot of bad life decisions in general, but not yet wicked. George Zimmerman was a little too zealous in his desire to "help" his community, but also NOT wicked.
The truth is,TM was stoned and acting strangely. GZ was out actively searching for people acting strangely, not with the intent to kill them, but too get them arrested and removed from the neighborhood. TM had his girlfriend on the phone and wanted to impress her with how tough he was, GZ had the police on the phone wanting to impress them with how fed up he was with the state of lawlessness in his neighborhood.
TM decided to confront the guy following him instead of calling the police, running home, demanding from a distance what he wanted, etc. GZ decided it wasn't enough to wait for a police car that was never going to come in time and follow TM to find out where he went. TM decided to sucker punch GZ and kick his ass. TMs assault plans were stymied by GZs lawful possession of a firearm for self-defense. Oops.
Delivering justice is determining who acted lawfully and who did not and treating each accordingly. A compromise verdict of a lesser charge that the defendant is STILL NOT GUILTY OF IS NOT JUSTICE. It is punishing the innocent to make the family of the guilty feel better about their loss. Even worse is to do so for political purposes or to give the crowd what they want. As Americans we do not believe in mob justice. We stand against it. It is sad that this young man made poor decisions because he was raised in a society that is no longer civil and no longer has consequences for bad behavior, instead criminal behavior is required for any muted consequences to be meted.
My father once told me that there is a difference between the way men fight and the way boys fight. He told me a boy will challenge you to a fight and try to black your eye before the teachers come to your rescue. A man knows that nobody is coming to help, he knows that losing is not an option because he doesn't know the capabilities, intent or depth of rage in his opponent. A man does what he must to return to his family. On that night....a boy picked a fight with a man. In his case the test came before the lesson. In my case, my father saw to it that the lesson came first. Thank you Dad. This could have easily been me....I have been both TM and GZ and different stages in my life.
It is sad, it is a tragedy, but it is not criminal. It is taught in law school that one's RIGHT to flail his arms about ceases at the precise point and time as such flailing causes his fist to come in contact with the tip of another's nose. GZ had the RIGHT to do everything he did. He had the right to report suspicious behavior to the police. He had the right to carry a concealed firearm. He had the right to follow someone he did not recognize in his neighborhood. He had the right to defend himself, even with deadly force, when TM decided to fight instead of talk. This event meets Manslaughter statutory conditions even less than 2nd degree murder, and it utterly fails to meet even the minimum burden necessary to have even been charged with 2nd degree Murder. You, Sir, are wrong. This man does not "deserve" to go to prison to assuage our collective guilt for allowing this young man to be raised as a thug. Nor does he deserve to be elevated for his actions. There is a responsibility to avoid conflict at all cost when carrying a concealed weapon, but there is no legal obligation.
|
|
|
|
