Zimmerman Charged With 2nd-Degree Murder 995
George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer who shot Trayvon Martin, was charged with second-degree murder. He faces up to life in prison if convicted in the shooting. From the article: "Special prosecutor Angela Corey announced the charges but would not discuss how she arrived at them or disclose other details of her investigation, saying: 'That's why we try cases in court.'
Second-degree murder is typically brought in cases when there is a fight or other confrontation that results in death and but does [not] involve a premeditated plan to kill.
Corey would not disclose Zimmerman's whereabouts for his safety but said that he will be in court within 24 hours."
Re:News for nerds? (Score:1, Informative)
I agree, this is not news for nerds.
Others have already agreed with you, but I wanted to "pile on", in the hopes of influencing the "editors" who select these stories. Yeah, I know, it's silly for me to think this post might make a difference. Most of the time, the "editors" can't be bothered to even read the story; I have no realistic expectation that they might actually read our comments.
Re:Racism (Score:5, Informative)
You have a pointer for "what first degree murder is"? I don't readily see a mismatch.
I'm going to presume this is a serious question...
First degree murder requires that you:
1) Wanted to kill someone
2) Planned to do it
3) Executed the plan
If you didn't mean to kill someone and planned to do it, it isn't first degree murder. Even if Zimmerman followed Martin around for a month, it wouldn't be first degree murder if *something* happens and Martin ends up dead. That planning it bit is pretty damned important.
Re:Good luck with that fair trial thing (Score:5, Informative)
It's not about whether you have "heard of the case". It's whether what you've heard has made you lean one way or the other.
There have been plenty of high-profile cases that went to jury just fine.
Re:Based on the (actual) 911 transcript (Score:0, Informative)
Second degree murder charges can typically be supported by the intent to kill someone and the attempt to kill them. Using a deadly weapon -- in this case, a gun -- establishes prima facie that the intent was to kill. (Yes, that's the way the law works. You can say all day, "I only meant to wound him!" but using a weapon that often results in death on someone means that you intended to kill them, period.)
So in this case, the fact that Zimmerman had a gun, pointed that gun at the victim, and pulled the trigger, is enough to support second degree murder. Now he gets to try to rebut that charge with the affirmative defense of Self-Defense.
Re:"the neighborhood watch volunteer" (Score:5, Informative)
So I see:
The people at the Retreat at Twin Lakes had been missing bikes, grills and a few times thought strangers were casing their town houses.
When the homeowners association wanted to start a neighborhood watch, only one man stepped up: George Zimmerman, the 28-year-old who admitted to shooting an unarmed Miami Gardens teenager and who is now the focal point of a race-related scandal of national proportions.
Interviews with neighbors reveal a pleasant young man passionate about neighborhood security who took it upon himself to do nightly patrols while he walked his dog.
Licensed to carry a firearm and a student of criminal justice, Zimmerman went door-to-door asking residents to be on the lookout, specifically referring to young black men who appeared to be outsiders, and warned that some were caught lurking, neighbors said. The self-appointed captain of the neighborhood watch program is credited with cracking some crimes, and thwarting others.
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/17/2700249/trayvon-martin-shooter-a-habitual.html#storylink=cpy [miamiherald.com]
Re:Bad Slashdot (Score:5, Informative)
It's not always been there, I see:
"Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters"
at the top of my browser.
No "and"
Re:This is out of control (Score:5, Informative)
Re:News for nerds? (Score:5, Informative)
I agree, this is not news for nerds.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't (this nerd finds it interesting), but it could certainly be "stuff that matters".
...in the hopes of influencing the "editors" who select these stories.
Your ~162K userid suggests you've been here for a while, so I, with my ~566K userid shouldn't have to tell you that there's this thing called the Firehose. But, well, here we are.
Re:Good luck with that fair trial thing (Score:5, Informative)
Of course if he hadn't had it all we would have heard about some teenager asaulting a neighborhood watch captain, and really wouldn't have put much thought to him spending time in jail.
Assuming, of course, that Martin attacked Zimmerman. We only have Zimmerman's word that that's what happened. That's why arrests are generally made in these situations.
Re:Bad Slashdot (Score:5, Informative)
Why is it so hard for people to understand that Slashdot is "News for Nerds" AND "Stuff that Matters". Really, it's always been there, and it's hardly a long motto.
I've always assumed that "Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters" meant that articles would be "News for Nerds" OR "Stuff that Matters", not AND.
I've never nitpicked grammar before, but I'll be damned before I allow poor boolean logic to be applied to this site.
Plus I get to write two sentences in this post that end with "and". Life doesn't get better than this.
Re:Good luck with that fair trial thing (Score:4, Informative)
Zimmerman's Hispanic. Why would a white supremacist cause a hung jury?
Re:Good luck with that fair trial thing (Score:5, Informative)
And this is relevant how? Zimmerman was on the phone with 911 well BEFORE the confrontation. He was told to stop stalking Martin. He continued to do so anyway.
Re:Good luck with that fair trial thing (Score:5, Informative)
The 911 dispatcher told him the back off and let the real professionals handle it.
That is an established fact.
I think you have just established you aren't competent using many of the words in your statements. Lets review what was said [youtube.com],
So, is that a command to "back off" and "let the real professionals handle it" by the civilian dispatcher who has no authority? No
So, is it an "established fact"? No
These "stand your ground" laws work both ways.
Snark masquerading as "established fact." Something that is more interesting:
More on the Irrelevance of 'Stand Your Ground' to the Trayvon Martin Case [reason.com]
Zimmerman saw Trayvon as a perp and Trayvon probably saw Zimmerman as a sexual predator.
Interesting take. If that is so, why didn't Marin call the police for help? Maybe some hints in the bottom half of this?
Trayvon Martin case heading towards the political abyss [legalinsurrection.com]
Re:Good luck with that fair trial thing (Score:1, Informative)
Re:News for nerds? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not from the US. A lot of my understanding of current political issues within the US come from this site. I find considerable value in reading the comments of nerds to issues that may not, in themselves, be News _for_ Nerds.
I am from the United States and I would like to second that. Between Fox and Huffington Post, I really don't trust many news sources I can find. Everybody has their bias and their axes to grind. At /., I can look at a wide selection of opinions, and while as a group the readers here certainly have their bias, a well written post that provides informative or insightful information that goes against that bias, still gets modded Informative or Insightful despite that. When there is something I don't know much about, I often look forward to an article about it here as, while not perfect, the modding system here is better than any other one I've seen and the same goes for the people who post. Even our Anonymous Coward trolls are more well spoken and seem more intelligent than honest posters over on the Wall Street Journal. I've learned a lot about various issues from both people who show personal knowledge about something as well as just some decent logic.
Re:Good luck with that fair trial thing (Score:4, Informative)
The facts of the case as I understand them are that Martin was walking along, Zimmerman thought Martin was up to no good, called 911, pursued Martin against the 911 operator's advice with a gun, and stupidly created a situation where one person attacked the other (conflicting reports on who attacked who), and felt he had to use his gun. Does that match your understanding / what you expect an honest jury to find?
Assuming so, I think the jury will just say he's not guilty of second-degree murder. (Presumably the hypothetical white supremacist would go along with that.) They would have been a lot more likely to find him guilty of voluntary manslaughter [wikipedia.org] due to "imperfect self-defense":
"An honest but unreasonable belief that deadly force was necessary" is as good a description of the situation as any. It seems like the prosecutor was overcorrecting the lack of action until now and overreached in going for second-degree murder instead of voluntary manslaughter.