First Please not I am NOT a Criminal Law Attny. I did though partially enter law school and enjoy law by recalling and enjoying discussion and reflection of large societal-law issues and their consideration.
With that said. George Zimmerman is a killer to me. I have had too many conversations bcuz I am a lawyer where someone thinks they have me cornered to a yes/no question.
Beginning last night. Since I put more thought in. Questioned what laws where maybe we would impute malice and he is a MURDERER are there. I do not know how helpul other than knowing what I already believe, or to show that the idea of Model Codes over states "experimenting" might prevail. As you'll see I discuss the Model Penal Code and what was generally the "Common Law" as taught to you in Law School in considering what he may otherwise in not a different time, but place been guilty of (without getting into much what I think in Florida).
I first note as an aside some Criminal Attorney may wholly correct me and say that Florida has adopted the MPC. I didn't bother looking because I doubt, and their law is so controversial and no Flack going to the ALI who put the MPC out.
As an Attorney people believe for some reason I have a particular insight into whether the Verdict was correct. I don’t. I am an attorney so I am a realist (generally I am a "legal realist" down to whether a judge had their coffee might matter).
Last night I got into a convo with white (I am white) friends where I was surprised the extent they seemed to have to stand up for Zimmerman. I'd asked in disbelief
if it was them (white) alone or that and wearing a Lacoste shirt do you really think you'd be stopped, looked at, dead? (crickets) no admission.
As it advanced as they weren't interested much in being intellectually honest - they seemed to think they could ask me, a lawyer, despite not Crim Law, a yes/no question.
Was the Verdict "Correct". I started to explain they wanted "yes" or "no".
While I am writing because it made me curious as my outrage conflicted with my memory and belief as to elsewhere or using another state or model laws (not due to demographics or demonizing the trial/ppl involved) my answer led me to wonder for this diary (I did not say yes to either as I viewed it as how the Trial occured, here I am not more looking Bubble as is he a Murderer, something somewhere). I think Yes. The Model Penal Code and Typical Common Law it's arguable and I think likely due to the true outrage and "recklessness" (we'll see why important) I see involved.
THE "MODEL" PENAL CODE
In Law school you learn the “Model Penal Code”. There is a “Model” code (Commercial (UCC), etc.) that scholars, experts using common law create laws and alter to try and create uniformity. They do so in the hopes all the states adopt. The ALI propounds, I am not going to pay 40 dollars so what I have is from Google/ what little notes I have from Class 10 yrs ago.
Model Penal Code
The purpose of the Model Penal Code was to stimulate and assist legislatures in making a major effort to appraise the content of the penal law by a contemporary reasoned judgment—the prohibitions it lays down, the excuses it admits, the sanctions it employs, and the range of the authority that it distributes and confers. Since its promulgation, the Code has played an important part in the widespread revision and codification of the substantive criminal law of the United States
http://www.ali.org/...
WHAT IF FLORIDA HAD THE MODEL PENAL CODE, OR EVEN THE TYPICAL COMMON LAW CONCEPTS?
So lets go to what in theory should happen where sanity writes laws.
MURDER? (Yes, Maybe)
1. The Model Law/MPC (for all states to adopt/be uniform)
Purposefully or knowingly killing another human being. (without mitigating circumstances ie necessity self defense)
-> GZ would've had to have followed intending to kill TM. I do not think anyone believes this. But . . . the MPC developed because of situations, rulings, and constantly evolves so there is flexibility and consistency (and a statement of what Common Law Generally says).
Killing another human being in circumstances showing extreme recklessness. This functions much the same as the common law's depraved heart murder rule. (it's mitigated a bit because it is reckless not malice or what we as a society see as the worst).
Recklessness and Imputation
Again I would suppose it impossible to prove a motive. But as the "depraved heart" has been utilized to allow consideration of recklessness to jump in and be the same except a bit mitigated (as it should, if I am firing a gun off on the 4th of july and Kill, I am being so reckless it shouldn't matter and I would agree that I did not mean to or have Malice) somewhere he might be guilty if reckless.
"Extreme Recklessness" is to be generally treated the same as purposeful normal Murder. Less Reckless close to "Manslaughter" (as no "Manslaughter in the MPC).
1.) Recklessness- consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustified risk.
The idea is a recognition Common Law has developed so that a Person taking a substantial risk that’s extremely outrageous we might find the requisite malice to call it murder.
Do we as a society find what he did so outrageous and Risky that a Death will result that the MPC would call it Murder?
The acts that occured of import in my opinion in considering. George Zimmerman Carried a gun after Society asked him not to (to avoid an outrageous situation). He knew that. George Zimmerman carried a deadly weapon while "patroling". We have exchanged our rights to Vigilantism to be civilized and Utilize the Police. Which makes it even stranger that the Police had been called. After I find GZ's actions more and more reckless. He had plenty of time to make choices. He saw no crime occur. Even if he had that is not the purpose of a conceal carry (it is self-defense of you or another only, not you se someone else steal).
Either an Officer (if a Dispatcher is) or an Agent of the Police Force advised GZ not to leave. Obviously for multiple reasons including it was being taken care of and for his safety. He chose it more important to provoke a situation and put a gun in the equation (why not leave in his car?). Or wait a moment for police? GZ chose to do all of the above rather than concern himself with his own safety. As a member of Society I do not want people disregarding what dispatchers tell them after they report a "suspicion". The level of outrage of all already matters as it is truly tied to is this "reckless".
A penultimate "Manslaughter" case involved a game of Russian Roullette (Commonwealth v. Malone). A friend killed another without intent but it was 30% likely. I see it as very likely that if you believe a crime committed, have a gun. Approach/Confront and Cause provocation something will happen. You have no right to do so. Percent doesn't matter. It would've been foreseeable to ZImmerman and why he brought a gun that he might have to use. Malone or Zimmeman to me (Malone is far more Reckless) but in the abstract in both the logical conclusion of a foreseeably unnecessary situation, reckless is an indifference to life and a death.
Zimmerman caused Provocation (generally at Common Law that immediately takes self defense away, MPC I believe similar, as does a gun allow a jury at common law to presume 2nd degree murder- so I look at the history of the import of the Deadly Weapon, and importantly time to consider the Choice (always of import) and the choices. I see those facts as outrageous and Reckless. You disregard legitimate authority, and make a choice that the victim did not. You recklessy and subjectively decided to create a situation where the best case seems to be you'd make sure (seeing and witnessing no crime) that someone would remain for the police. You were in no Danger. You put a gun into the equation. And worst case is you getting shot, shooting hitting someone else or an innocent "suspect" (or guilty with a gun, or with their own concealed carry) (or someone else) because of your untrained suspicion.
If that is ok, we don't much need the police. I don't believe that. That scares me. I am outraged and would never do the same, nor imagine any responsible member of society would. That's for a prosecutor to show and jury todecide, and call it recklessness under "Model" Law.
I believe depending on degree we think it is, is the question and either way he is Guilty were he elsewhere or tried by the MPC. I do not much care if Trayvon hit him first. In his position if I am being followed approached by a large non-police officer I have no choices but instinctual Fight or Flight at some point.
.
The reality: All in all it really comes down to the outrage factor, towards either cl hardness of heart or recklessness with indifference to the value of human life.
(n.b.) consciousness part helps too, how conscious were they in assessing how reckless is reckless.
It is subjective and obviously arguments go the other ways. But I hope I am showing that advancements of what is suggested Universal give the tools to show the situation could very well be murder regardless of the idiocy of witness prep (but not considering Racism).
I note I didn't get into self defense, etc. theories. Or stand your ground. I mostly cared about what is ideally uniform if the conversation is yes he could be seen to have committed homicide now prove it was justified.
I will definitely answer friends differently. States such as New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Oregon have enacted almost all of the provisions. Many have adopted most. If there I would say depending on if the Outrage/recklessness level yes but perhaps less if not extreme recklessness.