Trayvon Martin Case

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

They may not but it shows Zimmerman getting reasonableness in real-time. Not to mention the community's neighborhood watch protocol.

Reasonableness IS NOT the standard for manslaughter. Here is the instruction given:

To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. Trayvon Martin is dead.

2. George Zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin.

George Zimmerman cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide:

Each of us 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.

Emphasis mine.

The assertion that (1) getting out of his car against the instructions of a dispatcher; and (2) in violation of protocols -- is unreasonable is not enough to convict for the crime of manslaughter [although it may be enough in a civil wrongful death tort claim].

Rather, for a conviction you must assume - b/c there is no evidence one way or the other on this - that he had a conscience intent to cause harm. The closest thing to direct evidence on this point is GZ's comment "these **** always get away". For guilt, you must presume from that statement that GZ intended to cause harm. While I agree that is a reasonable assumption, there are three or four other reasonable assumptions which I ran through several pages ago when Chico and discussed this specific point. If you take the presumption of innoncence seriously, you cannot presume the necessary state of mind unless the State proves that it is the only reasonable assumption. (i.e.- the State's evidence eliminates all other reasonable assumptions).

I just don't see that. To me, it takes a lot of assumptions contrary to the presumption of innocence to read what was in GZ's mind that night and to get from a level general frustration to an intention to cause harm. [I mean really, if he had the "conscious intention to harm", why not approach with the gun drawn? If there was evidence of that, whole 'nother story.]