Will George Zimmerman be innocent or guilty for the death of Treyvon Martin?

You don't have to break laws to be liable for your negligence.

 

There wasn't any negligence. He didn't contract, and as has been listed before, neighborhood watches have 'guidelines' not rules or laws of force. No civil law was broken, and right now the only real debate is over criminal law. And that is in serious question.

 

The HOA settlement of over a million dollars says otherwise.

 

In a Criminal court you most certainly do.

 

Unfounded garbage given form. It is a baseless lawsuit from a grieving family with the support of millions of mindless drones. They are trying to cash in on their son's death.

If Trayvon was their son, I am not surprised by their actions. It is about their speed given the family caliber.

 

You should look up Criminal Negligence.

 

That is a crime. If you are criminally negligent then you are breaking the law. There is no criminal negligence here, somethinmg which if you knew anything about the law then you would realise.

 

No. You do not always have to be breaking the law ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence
a
nd another:

Criminal negligence may stem from otherwise lawful conduct

Criminal negligence doesn't always involve an illegal act. The definition of California criminal negligence states that the individual acts recklessly.not unlawfully. This means that if the defendant commits a legal act under circumstances that are likely to produce great bodily harm or death, he/she can be held criminally negligent.

Example: A mother was charged with involuntary manslaughter when her child died of meningitis.[SUP]18[/SUP] A firm believer in Christian Science, the mother refused to seek medical treatment for her child and instead, relied on the Church's prayers.

Pursuing homeopathic or spiritual remedies for a sick child isn't typically unlawful. However, the court held that when a child's life is threatened.as demonstrated by the child's weight loss, irritability, disorientation and irregular, heavy breathing.that lawful conduct becomes criminal. The defendant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter based on her criminal negligence.[SUP]19[/SUP]
​

http://www.shouselaw.com/criminal-negligence.html#3

 

Why are you quoting California law? This happened in Florida.

Florida does have culpable negligence laws. For these to apply the person must have had a specific duty. For instance if you leave a loaded weapon within reach of a child and the child gains access then you are culpable because you had a duty not to leave a loaded weapon accessible to a child. As a private citizen Zimmerman had no duty of care to Martin. In the State of Florida you have a duty of care over those spefically in your care -such as children or vulnerable adults of which you are the legal guardian or in loco parentis, Zimmerman was clearly neither of these. You also have a duty ,specifically, to control or report dangerous fires (877.15)

or

A person causes Serious injury or death by following an action that was easily foreseeable as being likely to cause death or serious injury. So If I play a trick on someone ,such as removing their chair before they sit down and they damage their spine then that would be culpable negligence because it is an easily predictable outcome. Following someone at a distance and monitoring them whilst reporting to the police what is going on is NOT culpable negligence, if it were then every neighborhood watch group would be guilty every time they followed someone at a distance and reported what they saw. It is no reasonable to assume that a person being monitored will double back and attack you when you return to your car.

 

The better question is why are talking about CIVIL law in a CRIMINAL case?

 

Criminal negligence or liability goes to the "reasonable man standard".

 

Please quote the relevant part of Florida law please because you are (as usual) speaking out of your ass

- - - Updated - - -

You really haven;t a clue. Culpable negligence is a criminal matter

 

Funny how it seems it is the TM supporters who are all more educated in the law while the GZ supporters are just inbred racists.

 

Funny how you failed to put the whole quote in.

To establish the crime of culpable negligence, however, the Court required a degree of negligence higher than the minimum degree necessary to sustain recovery of compensatory damages.
"This Court is committed to the rule that the degree of negligence required to sustain imprisonment should be at least as high as that required for the imposition of punitive damages in a civil action. The burden of proof authorizing a recovery of exemplary or punitive damages by a plaintiff for negligence must show a gross and flagrant character, evincing reckless disregard of human life or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects; or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of indifference to consequences; or such wantonness or recklessness or grossly careless disregard of the safety and welfare of the public, or that reckless indifference to the rights of others, which is equivalent to an intentional violation of them." 191 So. at 298.

 

Its called different things in different jurisdictions.. but the legal theory is universal...

 

Even funnier how you had no idea the case existed until a superior educated you. You're welcome.

 

Ouch!!!

 

The Martin fans think that any law from anywhere in the world applies to Florida. They just make it up as they go along (along with evidence) If you believe them they think that teh prosecution has an open and shut case whilst teh reality is that they kinow they are going to lose but are only prosecuting to make the chimps happy.

 

Legal theory is pretty much the same for the whole US.

Must you call black Americans "chimps"?

 

Not all Black Americans are chimps. Chimps are Black Americans who 'chimp out'. and legal theory is substantially different depending on whether the states laws are dependent pn Code Napoleon, Spanish law or Common law.