 SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks |
Best Sportsbooks List
|
|
| |||||
| #1 FanDuel | SBR rating 4.8/5 | Review | #6 BetRivers | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review | #2 Caesars | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #7 Fanatics | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review |
| #3 DraftKings | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #8 Betway | SBR rating 3.8/5 | Review | ||
| #4 BetMGM | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #9 Borgata | SBR rating 3.5/5 | Review | ||
| #5 bet365 | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #10 ClutchBet | SBR rating 2.9/5 | Review | ||
the suspense is killing me
when is the zimmerman jury going to come back with verdict?
are books giving odds for a hung jury?
also, why did the defense accept a 6 person jury? wouldnt a 12 person jury increase there chances of getting an acquittal or at the very least a mistrial?
Thought this thread was about Carper's big announcement.
Why has the jury taking so long to come up with a verdict?Indecisive = not guilty
Zimmerman is a free man
Rifleman you're a moron
jury still deliberating, court still in session
they just took a 30 min recess
Zimmerman will be found not guilty. It looks like it might even happen tonight and Zimmy could be at home eating a bucket of KFC and skittles.
Brace yourselves for black riots.
|
This post was nominated 1
time
. To view the nominated thread please click here.
People who nominated: retard
|
and washing it down with watermelon flavored Iced Tea!!!Originally Posted by DwightShrute
Well he is clearly not going to be guilty of murder 2 now. It's manslaughter or nothing.......
I don't see how he even gets convicted of manslaughter......none of the definitions apply to his situation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter
Manslaughter is a legal term for the killing of a human being, in a manner considered by law as less culpable than murder. The distinction between murder and manslaughter is said to have first been made by the Ancient Athenian lawmaker Draco in the 7th century BCE.[1]
The definition of manslaughter differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea, or state of mind; or the circumstances under which the killing occurred (mitigating factors). Manslaughter is usually broken down into two distinct categories: voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter; however, this is not the case in all jurisdictions.[2]
In some jurisdictions, such as the UK, Canada and some Australian states provocation (or "loss of control" in English law) is a partial defence to a charge of murder which acts by converting what would otherwise have been murder into manslaughter.
Voluntary manslaughter
Voluntary manslaughter occurs either when the defendant kills with malice aforethought (intention to kill or cause serious harm), but there are mitigating circumstances that reduce culpability, or when the defendant kills only with an intent to cause serious bodily harm. Voluntary manslaughter in some jurisdictions is a lesser included offense of murder. The traditional mitigating factor was provocation; however, others have been added in various jurisdictions.
Infanticide
Infanticide is an offense created by statute in some countries during the 20th century. Generally, a conviction of infanticide will be made where the court is satisfied that a mother killed her newborn child while the balance of her mind was disturbed as a result of childbirth; for instance, in cases of post-natal depression. It is a form of manslaughter, and carries the same range of sentences as a manslaughter conviction. While infanticide is a separate offense from murder, and not a reductive defense to murder (such as the defenses listed below), in practice it works in much the same way as a reductive defense.
Involuntary manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, either express or implied. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention. It is normally divided into two categories; constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter, both of which involve criminal liability.
Constructive manslaughter
Constructive manslaughter is also referred to as ‘unlawful act’ manslaughter. It is based on the doctrine of constructive malice, whereby the malicious intent inherent in the commission of a crime is considered to apply to the consequences of that crime. It occurs when someone kills, without intent, in the course of committing an unlawful act. The malice involved in the crime is transferred to the killing, resulting in a charge of manslaughter.
For example, a person who runs a red light driving a vehicle and hits someone crossing the street could be found to intend or be reckless as to assault or criminal damage (see DPP v Newbury[3]). There is no intent to kill, and a resulting death would not be considered murder, but would be considered involuntary manslaughter. The accused's responsibility for causing death is constructed from the fault in committing what might have been a minor criminal act. Reckless drinking or reckless handling of a potentially lethal weapon may result in a death that is deemed manslaughter.
Involuntary manslaughter may be distinguished from accidental death. A person who is driving carefully, but whose car nevertheless hits a child darting out into the street, has not committed manslaughter. A person who pushes off an aggressive drunk, who then falls and dies, has probably not committed manslaughter, although in some jurisdictions it may depend whether "excessive force" was used or other factors.
It is also possible to be held civilly liable for a death (and pay damages) without being criminally liable (and going to prison), e.g. O.J. Simpson.
Criminally negligent manslaughter
Criminally negligent manslaughter is variously referred to as criminally negligent homicide in the United States, gross negligence manslaughter in England and Wales. In Scotland and some Commonwealth of Nations jurisdictions the offence of culpable homicide might apply.
It occurs where death results from serious negligence, or, in some jurisdictions, serious recklessness. A high degree of negligence is required to warrant criminal liability. A related concept is that of willful blindness, which is where a defendant intentionally puts himself in a position where he will be unaware of facts which would render him liable.
Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs where there is an omission to act when there is a duty to do so, or a failure to perform a duty owed, which leads to a death. The existence of the duty is essential because the law does not impose criminal liability for a failure to act unless a specific duty is owed to the victim. It is most common in the case of professionals who are grossly negligent in the course of their employment. An example is where a doctor fails to notice a patient's oxygen supply has disconnected and the patient dies (R v Adomako).
Vehicular or intoxication manslaughter
In some jurisdictions, such as the United States, there exists the specific crime of Vehicular or intoxication manslaughter.
Assisted suicide
In some places assisted suicide is punishable as manslaughter.
this one seems to fit best, zimmerman did kill martin but did not have the intention to do so
he may have feared for his life when he shot, but he instigated the event so he sure as hell is to blame
what a fcuking bitch, if you cant defend yourself then mind your damn bi'ness. you cant go around harassing people thinking that 'if shit gets out of hand i just shoot the guy'
now that I think of it, it may have been premeditated
that's cause you're a racist moron.....
Involuntary manslaughter....sold I'll take it
NOT GULITY!!
NOT GULITY!!!
BOOK IT!!!
you are just trying to get a rise out of people, no wonder this place is dying, every other poster does the same as you
anything else is a miscarriage of justiceNOT GULITY!!
NOT GULITY!!!
BOOK IT!!!
Reply With Quote
