George Zimmerman suing parents of Trayvon Martin among others

[Rev. Rye]

I think it's a common trope, when people get away with terrible crimes, for people to cry, "The defendant was overcharged." I'm not sure how much merit there is to that idea, but I suppose it's a possibility. Not to mention, your personal definition of what second degree murder is doesn't quite match that of the Florida statute.

"The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree..."

^This is how Florida defines second-degree murder, and I think this fits pretty damn well with even Zimmerman's version of events - save for the whole "self-defense" bit, which I understand changes the context of things quite a bit, but it's not like Martin had a gun out and Zimmerman shot a young man who was trying to kill him. He killed an unarmed young man with little to no provocation, and clear instructions from police dispatch to not pursue Martin when he began running.

And, of course, I'm not saying you disagree with any of this; I'm simply asking you to consider, is it really that Zimmerman was "overcharged," like the media loves to say any time something like this happens, or is it because of Florida's 'stand your ground' laws, which alleviates people of the responsibility and 'duty to retreat'...

I honestly wonder.

I've looked up the Florida Criminal Jury Instructions for 2012-2013. Here are the instructions for a second-degree murder charge. They have to prove that "There was an unlawful killing of (Trayvon Martin) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind [Defined as and act that "a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life."] without regard for human life." And, unfortunately, Zimmerman was able to spin the events in such a way that it was really hard to prove "ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent."

And meanwhile, here's the instructions for manslaughter. And looking at the "Culpable Negligence" section really got me thinking:

I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. As I have said, every person has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.

The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury.

That 911 dispatcher (not quite the legally binding words of police, but still) telling him to not follow Trayvon Martin would seem to support that last sentence.

And, yes, there are many lawyers who would agree with my interpretation.

Of course, it may not be as easy as reducing the charges to manslaughter, especially given that, in the original trial, he was charged with Second Degree murder with a lesser included offense of manslaughter. And he got off on both charges.