|
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
This doesn't make any sense. They could have found him guilty for either Murder 2 or manslaughter, so what would you have preferred they charge him with? Discharging a firearm in public? |
The prosecution pushed Murder 2, the judge had to remind the jury they could do manslaughter. Never trust a jury to interpret a lower charge correctly.
When I heard the judge reminded the jury on what they could convict, specifically on the fact that they could do manslaughter I didn't have to hear anything else from the prosecution to know they fucking botched it.
The prosecutor pushed murder 2 hard, way too hard, and they didn't want to do manslaughter (and its really hard to prosecute manslaughter OR murder 2, not like murder 1/murder 2 where the definitions are closer). A smart prosecutor would have charged him solely with voluntary manslaughter and ran with that because its an easy case to prove, there was malicious intent (him getting out of the car to pursue Martin) and it was obvious that there was a fight, and that no matter who started the actual brawl, that Zimmerman had put himself willingly into a situation where he knew a fight could occur. He wasn't out to kill Martin, but he was out to engage Martin in some sort of altercation that was outside the purview of his entirely non-existent authority.
You wouldn't have to try and pull all this fancy bullshit and call idiot witnesses who are going to fuck your case if you are just trying to prove that he put himself in a situation where he possibly would be in a fight, and when a fight did occur he killed him.
|