After the Zimmerman verdict, the real issue is the definition of manslaughter

As the polarized reactions to the verdict in the Zimmerman trial still simmer, it appears that the issue here was not “stand your ground” laws or race relations or Second Amendment rights.

It seems that the real issue America must deal with is the legal definition of manslaughter, which handcuffed the jury in this case and made it impossible to find George Zimmerman guilty of anything.

The emotionally wrought Juror B29, who said in an interview that Zimmerman “got away with murder” because of the language of the law, should have crystallized the issue for the nation. The juror said she was a holdout during deliberations but succumbed to the majority of the 6-woman jury because the prosecution’s case failed to prove that Zimmerman “killed him (Treyvon Martin) intentionally.”

My hang-up with the verdict is this: How can a guy who is losing a fight but has not sustained any serious injuries fatally shoot his adversary in the heart at point-blank range and not be found guilty of anything?

My immediate reaction was that the choices given to the jury must have been flawed in some way. The language that defines manslaughter, while it varies from state to state, essentially says that it applies in cases where a person did not intend to cause death or serious injury, but caused the death of another through recklessness or criminal negligence.

The Florida manslaughter law, as it was explained to the jury, requires negligence that results in the death of another, “without lawful justification.” The jurors took that to mean that Zimmerman had a lawful right to self-defense, so they could not find him guilty.

I’m no attorney but it seems to me that in cases where self-defense is an issue, a proportional response must be a key part of the law. If you’re defending yourself after suffering a bloody nose and a cut on the head, a fatal shot to the chest is certainly not a proportional response. That sounds like manslaughter to me.

For example, couldn’t Zimmerman fire a warning shot or wound Martin in the shoulder? Maybe all it would have taken to end the confrontation (assuming one believes Zimmerman’s version of the story) would be one smack to the side of Martin’s head with the pistol that the defendant brandished suddenly.

To me, appropriate proportionality should be included in the language of every state’s manslaughter statute. Maybe Attorney General Eric Holder should get busy pursuing that task.