ForumGarden

A jury on Saturday night convicted a Florida man on four charges related to his shooting into an SUV full of teenagers during an argument over loud music, but could not decide on the most serious charge -- murder.

Yet another case that splits opinion on race grounds?

Bruv;1448299 wrote: A jury on Saturday night convicted a Florida man on four charges related to his shooting into an SUV full of teenagers during an argument over loud music, but could not decide on the most serious charge -- murder.

Yet another case that splits opinion on race grounds?


How can that not be murder?

Anyone in their right mind would expect that firing ten shots into a car full of people is likely to result in the death of at least one of them, therefore, anyone in their rigtht mind who chooses to do so with a result of the death of one of those people has committed murder.

The defense did not put in a plee of insanity, why the doubt over the verdict?

Bryn Mawr;1448303 wrote: How can that not be murder?

The defense did not put in a plee of insanity, why the doubt over the verdict?


I can......just......understand the concept of being afraid for your own life, and overlay that with the American idea about carrying a gun for your own protection.......due to everybody else might be having one...... and might use it aggressively against you.

Then reason kicks in.......10 shots ? From a hand gun ?

Like I know anything about guns...........wouldn't that take enough time to reconsider the first panicked decision ? Especially when there is no boom from the shotgun you think you saw.

The fact the verdict is sensitive to racial tensions, in 2014, is dis heartening to say the least.

(Bryn.......is the use of an 's' in defence and double 'ee' in plea an error..............or have you succumbed?)

The charge was First-degree murder. That is fairly explicit in that it requires proof of pre-meditated act.

The prosecutor was an idiot to push specifically for First -degree murder, and not charge him with second-degree, or with manslaughter.

This was the same problem in the more famous Zimmerman-Martin. Zimmerman was charged with First-Degree Murder. It implied that he set out with the explicit intent to kill Martin, which was, obviously, not the case.

LarsMac;1448316 wrote: The charge was First-degree murder. That is fairly explicit in that it requires proof of pre-meditated act.

The prosecutor was an idiot to push specifically for First -degree murder, and not charge him with second-degree, or with manslaughter.

This was the same problem in the more famous Zimmerman-Martin. Zimmerman was charged with First-Degree Murder. It implied that he set out with the explicit intent to kill Martin, which was, obviously, not the case.


So there is no leeway for a lesser verdict?

Can the judge over rule ?

Forcing the prosecution as First-degree murder, that springs from an isolated incident kind of forces the verdict they arrived at ?

In as much unless it could be proved he went out in order to shoot someone.

Bruv;1448319 wrote: So there is no leeway for a lesser verdict?

Can the judge over rule ?

Forcing the prosecution as First-degree murder, that springs from an isolated incident kind of forces the verdict they arrived at ?

In as much unless it could be proved he went out in order to shoot someone.


In some states, the jury can be asked to pick between several levels of a charge, but in Florida, the charges are specified. There have been a number of such trials where a lesser charge would have resulted in a conviction, but because of the specific charge, an acquittal seemed the only logical verdict.

If the criteria is set too high to convict by a reasonable person.......I have just this moment understood how these sort of trials are so racially charged events.

Is the person that sets the level of the charge in an elected political position?

Bruv;1448311 wrote:

(Bryn.......is the use of an 's' in defence and double 'ee' in plea an error..............or have you succumbed?)


No, just evidence of a bad day in the spelling department - correction, every day is a bad spelling day but sometimes more get through the filters that others.

LarsMac;1448316 wrote: The charge was First-degree murder. That is fairly explicit in that it requires proof of pre-meditated act.

The prosecutor was an idiot to push specifically for First -degree murder, and not charge him with second-degree, or with manslaughter.

This was the same problem in the more famous Zimmerman-Martin. Zimmerman was charged with First-Degree Murder. It implied that he set out with the explicit intent to kill Martin, which was, obviously, not the case.


As in this case - it was obviously not pre-meditated (unless that has a different meaning in the US) but it's murder just the same.

Does that imply that the prosecutor wanted the charge to fail given that it had no chance of succeeding whereas a case for second degree murder should have?

Bryn Mawr;1448338 wrote: As in this case - it was obviously not pre-meditated (unless that has a different meaning in the US) but it's murder just the same.

Does that imply that the prosecutor wanted the charge to fail given that it had no chance of succeeding whereas a case for second degree murder should have?


I'd hate to be the one to imply such a thing.

LarsMac;1448342 wrote: I'd hate to be the one to imply such a thing.


But you might be able to understand why there are lots of *cough* African Americans outside the court with placards?