Must be non-lawyers writing these wikepedia references. Traditionally, voiuntary manslaughter has to do with a crime committed in a fit of passion that has been decided as a matter of public poilcy that the intent is obviated (e.g. if a husband kills his wife when he find her in bed with another man a state might allow a jury to find him only guilty of voluntary manslaughter) Involuntary manslaugher is an act whether there is no intent to kill but the act is harmful or risky to human life (vehicular manslaughter) In California, every DUI defendant is read a statement from people v. Watson that driving while intoxicated is harmful to human life. The intent of doing so is to put the defendant on notice that driving while intoxicated is harmful to human life and that if he does so and someone dies then he now (after being informed) has the intent required for murder. I disagree that mens rea has nothing to do with crmiinal intent (three years of law school and almost 20 years of experience might just nudge out wikipedia..to be fair we rarely deal with Latin terminology after law school but mens rea is pretty much drilled into you while one is there)

The reality is that for trespass (I think Brad mentioned this already) it is not the state of mind of the intruder that matters it is the state of mind of the shooter given he information he has at hand when he shoots that matters.

Brad - Sure, but SYG makes it easier as the burden of proof has shifted.

So you are for the burden being on the resident rather than the investigator? I always thought you were for the state having to prove it's case. Hmmm, that is news to me. Would you feel the same way about people having to prove their innocence in other instances? Perhaps drug users should have to prove their innocence rather than the State having to prove guilt.

Here in America we believe in innocent until proven guilty. Proving that innocence in not the job of the accused. It is the job of the investigator/prosecutor to prove your guilt.

Come now Brad, that's a silly argument. In this instance you'd have already admitted responsibility for killing the intruder, self-defence would simply be mitigation.

Thus the case needs to be investigated. I have always said that.

Are you saying the case must be predestined to go to trial. Shall we predestine the outcome as well?

Do I have to explain what an 'affirmitive defence' is again? Or should I just conclude that these concepts are never going to get into your noggin?

The point is that self-defence should be an allowable mitigation, but that the burden of proof cannot logically lie with anyone other than the one making the claim - ie the defence.

Each case will be different, and so I make no presumption of trial let alone trial outcome. But I would certainly expect more circumspection from the police and prosecutors when dealing with claims of self defence. SYG goes too far, and opens the door to abuse.

Danivon:

By the way, going back to Zimmerman, there are holes appearing in his story. He claims he was hit first and landed on pavement. A witness says they were on grass. He claims he was under Martin. The witness says he was on top. The 911 call recording has someone calling out for help, and Zimmerman claims it was him. An audio expert says it is not.

Yes, there should be an investigation. It's a crying shame that there was not much of one until this came to national prominence. Justice should not be dependent on media attention and protest, it should be automatic.

I totally agree on Zimmerman's claims. It strongly appears as if he is lying! Are we certain that nothing would have happened without the media attention? I suspect that is the case, but have we seen evidence that the police were not going to investigate further no matter what? If that is the case, do we have a sense as to why? Is it racism, legal confusion on SYG, government laziness, lack of funding, or corruption? What is the core reason that the government did not gather more evidence later to determine whether Zimmerman should be prosecuted?

Ray Jay wrote: I suspect that is the case, but have we seen evidence that the police were not going to investigate further no matter what?

Well, they didn't seem too keen after the prosecutor put a stop on things, and it's interesting that there has been a resignation over it already.

If that is the case, do we have a sense as to why? Is it racism, legal confusion on SYG, government laziness, lack of funding, or corruption? What is the core reason that the government did not gather more evidence later to determine whether Zimmerman should be prosecuted?

A good set of possibilities. It could be a combination of some or all, but I suspect there would need to be an investigation into that as well if we are to do more than to guess.

A parallel is going on over here after the newspaper hacking story broke - as well as re-opening the investigation into hacking, the police have opened another into police bribery and there's a judicial inquiry going on.

A parallel is going on over here after the newspaper hacking story broke - as well as re-opening the investigation into hacking, the police have opened another into police bribery and there's a judicial inquiry going on.

Although I notice that they seem far keener to prosecute journalists for bribing police officers then they do to prosecute police officers for accepting bribes. Funny that....

Well, yes, we always will have the problem of who watches the watchmen. It's certainly no less of an issue this side of the pond.

NBC "enhanced" the audio. Is this what is acceptable for an investigation? Is it understandable why I feel that this is becoming a Duke Lacrosse team/ Brawley type case? The Media is all up in arms about what happened. ABC and NBC doctor/enhanced video and audio to fit their narrative. Afterwards, the other media outlets re-broadcast the lie. A simple case of "you lie and I'll swear to it".

Let the investigation run it's course.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/324402/20120405/nbc-apology-911-call-trayvon-martin-zimmerman.htm

What is meant by 'enhancement'? Looking at your link, it seems that they edited parts out. I thought you meant that they'd tampered with the sound itself, which might affect the analysis by a voice expert.

You mention two cases where the media got the story wrong. Are there none where they got the story right?

ABC "Enhanced" the video and then had to retract it's story the next day.

I think there are some media saying they don't know what happened that night. That IS the truth. The only two who know are God and Zimmerman.

It is sad that a kid went out and did not come back.

bbauska wrote:ABC "Enhanced" the video and then had to retract it's story the next day.

Again, by 'enhanced' do you mean they added anything? That's what 'enhanced' actually means.

Please be careful when making accusations to be clear and specific. After all, we would not want you to be open to the same charges you are laying against the media, would we?

I think there are some media saying they don't know what happened that night. That IS the truth. The only two who know are God and Zimmerman.

I thought there were all these witnesses who backed Zimmerman up? That's what ARJ was telling us.

At some point, hopefully, we will know. I agree we need an investigation. I also agree that the media are all over it. Over here, of course, we have sub judice and contempt of court laws that limit what the media are allowed to say in the period up to the conclusion of a trial.

But in the USA, I believe these would be challenged as contraventions of the 1st Amendment.

It is sad that a kid went out and did not come back.

Indeed it is.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/enhanced-video-shows-zimmerman-head-wound-trayvon-scuffle-abc-article-1.1054625

ABC news did not use the enhanced video until the next day. They ran the story with the video that did not show injury. That is what I mean by enhanced. They show what they want to show.

Does this seem like the same environment as the Duke Lacrosse and Brawley cases? To me it does.