Do you think Zimmerman will be convicted of murder?

I think it is very unlikely that they will present any evidence that Zimmerman did not believe he was defending himself and instead accidentally shot Trayvon in an act of extreme negligence.

He could have defended himself with equal force.

You'll have to take it up with the writers of the legislation who apparently choose the words they meant to use and be used.

Q: What, in your own mind, is the difference, other than the poetry, of acting with a 'depraved mind' or acting with 'a depraved heart"?

Please explain fully.

Joe(~~I think it's a Southern thing, bless their hearts)Nation

Who said they have to prove "extreme negligence"? The law doesn't say that.

Zimmerman may have believed he was defending himself, but that doesn't mean his life was actually in jeopardy or that his use of deadly force was necessary.

Zimmerman had a particular mind-set about Martin, from the first moment he noticed him, and that mind-set may have affected all of his perceptions and judgments up to the time he shot Martin. It may well be that mind-set that the state will use to demonstrate one element of the "depraved mind" specified in murder in the second degree.

The night of the shooting, the police classified the death as an "unnecessary killing". They felt it was manslaughter.

so what.....the law does not require this. The state goes after Zimmerman with the laws that it has, not the laws you want them to have.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

Two young men get into a violent struggle in a case that draws widespread headlines. In the chaos of the confrontation, one pulls a weapon and kills the other.

The dead youth was unarmed.

The victim was not Trayvon Martin, but Kendall Berry, a Florida International University football player stabbed to death by a fellow student in March 2010 during a physical confrontation

In Berry’s case, Miami-Dade police had no doubts.

His killer, Quentin Wyche, is going to trial on second-degree murder charges. A jury will be asked to consider self-defense. But notably, a Miami-Dade judge recently declined to dismiss the case based on Florida’s controversial “Stand Your Ground” self-defense law.

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Milton Hirsch did not think the evidence he reviewed proved Wyche was justified in using deadly force.

Prosecutors contend that Wyche fled the fight, fished scissors from a backpack, then re-engaged Berry before stabbing him. His defense attorney says the threat — a group of football players bent on jumping him — justified lethal force.

Judge’s reasoning

The law “does not purport to justify the use of deadly force in response to threats or shows of force of any and every kind,” Hirsch wrote in a ruling last month. “In ordinary circumstances, a push or a slap may be met with a push or a slap, or perhaps with a punch — but not with a bullet, whether under ‘Stand Your Ground’ or any provision of Florida law”...

Self-defense cases involving fisticuffs have resulted in mixed decisions by South Florida courts.

One such case involved Alexander Lopez-Lima of Hialeah, who prosecutors believed lost a fistfight and shot and killed an unarmed acquaintance at his apartment. But his defense lawyer insisted the victim was being robbed and was beating him so savagely that his nose fractured. “It was then, and only then, fearing what would happen next, that the defendant acted in his own defense,” his lawyer wrote.

A Miami-Dade judge dismissed the murder case based on the Stand Your Ground law.

Another case is that of Nadim Yaquibe of New York, who visited South Beach in 2008 and got into a scuffle with a homeless man who threw a book bag at the teen — who responded with a fatal knife thrust to the torso. A Miami-Dade judge denied an immunity motion, and Yaquibe is now awaiting trial on a charge of second-degree murder.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/v-fullstory/2719927/when-does-brawl-turn-into-deadly.html#storylink=cpy

"Depraved heart murder is the form of murder that establishes that the wilful doing of a dangerous and reckless act with wanton indifference to the consequences and perils involved, is just as blameworthy, and just as worthy of punishment, when the harmful result ensues, as is the express intent to kill itself. This highly blameworthy state of mind is not one of mere negligence. It is not merely one even of gross criminal negligence. It involves rather the deliberate perpetration of a knowingly dangerous act with reckless and wanton unconcern and indifference as to whether anyone is harmed or not. The common law treats such a state of mind as just as blameworthy, just as anti-social and, therefore, just as truly murderous as the specific intents to kill and to harm."
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/D/DepravedHeartMurder.aspx

To show a depraved mind, they would need to show that Zimmerman was engaging in an act of extreme recklessness that resulted in Travon being shot by accident.

LES: Hi. Good morning. I really appreciate the opportunity to comment on this. I wanted to ask the representative if there is a concept of proportionality of force built in to the Stand Your Ground law. And this is where it comes from: I personally have a black belt in martial law, and one of the concepts that's built into us, drilled into us is that you cannot respond with lethal force if you are not being threatened with lethal force. In fact, the foundation of the style that I practice and teach is that the first thing we should always do is avoid or resolve any potential situation. And then if we're attacked, we only reply with the minimum amount of force needed. And so in this case, it seems pretty clear that Trayvon Martin was unarmed. And so if there is not a proportionality of force built into this Stand Your Ground law, why would there not be?

BAXLEY: That's an excellent question, and, in fact, there is proportionality. This bill talks about meeting force with force. It doesn't say automatically use, you know, force that requires the death of the other person or lethal force. It says you're allowed to meet force with force, including, if necessary, the lethal force to stop the attack. And so there is a discussion about that acceleration. That is not the same as a duty to retreat, but it means, you know, to me, force with force means that if you're yelling at me, I can yell back. If you're pumping me on the chest, I can pump you on the chest. But if you got your hands around my neck to choke me to death, then I can stop that lethal attack.

The problem is, again, this is much easier to analyze as armchair quarterbacks on Monday than it is during the game on Friday night when, in fact, that person has to have the benefit of making the judgment. If it's a 200-pound assailant and you're a 150-pound woman, it's unlikely that you could make the judgment that she, you know, hasn't - how do you equalize that argument? They have to make that within seconds: To decide, do they want to be a victim of this assault, or do they want to stop this assault? And do they know that we'll be with them and be on their side if they stop this assault?

And so it's not just armed or disarmed or, you know, all these different factors. But, yes, sir, there is a proportionality that is called meet force with force. So the level of force would be proportionate to the sense that you sensed the attack, but you leave the judgment, in this statute, with victim because they're the one having to make a decision about a response

Arnold S. Trebach was a protester in the original civil rights movement during the Fifties, and also was Chief, Administration of Justice Section, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1960-63. Currently, he is professor emeritus, American University and a member of the Maryland state Advisory Committee to that commission.

All that is required is that Zimmerman believed that he was at risk from martin of bodily injury.

The law “does not purport to justify the use of deadly force in response to threats or shows of force of any and every kind,” Hirsch wrote in a ruling last month. “In ordinary circumstances, a push or a slap may be met with a push or a slap, or perhaps with a punch — but not with a bullet, whether under ‘Stand Your Ground’ or any provision of Florida law”

I posted the law, go back and read it.

Then there is the matter of whether Zimmerman provoked the deadly confrontation

No, "depraved mind" does not mean "extreme negligence"--as is evident from the explanation on the link you posted.

Quote:

"Depraved heart murder is the form of murder that establishes that the wilful doing of a dangerous and reckless act with wanton indifference to the consequences and perils involved, is just as blameworthy, and just as worthy of punishment, when the harmful result ensues, as is the express intent to kill itself. This highly blameworthy state of mind is not one of mere negligence. It is not merely one even of gross criminal negligence. It involves rather the deliberate perpetration of a knowingly dangerous act with reckless and wanton unconcern and indifference as to whether anyone is harmed or not. The common law treats such a state of mind as just as blameworthy, just as anti-social and, therefore, just as truly murderous as the specific intents to kill and to harm."
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/D/DepravedHeartMurder.aspx

A "dangerous and reckless act with wanton indifference to the consequences and perils involved" is not the equivalent of a negligent act, even a grossly negligent act, in all situations.

The link you posted contains definitions which mainly differentiate it from negligence, like this one...

"The traditional view has since evolved. An act which poses a risk to only one individual and which results in that individual's death may also be deemed depraved-heart murder. For example, death which resulted from a beating has been deemed to be within the scope of depraved-heart murder statutes. "
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/D/DepravedHeartMurder.aspx

And we really have to stick to Florida law, and how they define and interpret the law in Florida, in discussing the Zimmerman case.

Oralloy wrote:

To show a depraved mind, they would need to show that Zimmerman was engaging in an act of extreme recklessness that resulted in Travon being shot by accident.

No, not at all.

This was not an accidental shooting--it was intentional.

The "recklessness" would also be Zimmerman's following Martin and provoking a confrontation with him.

And that's where Zimmerman's mind-set comes in--he thought that Martin was a criminal from the moment he noticed him, and he was obsessed with not letting him get away before the cops showed up, and that affected his judgment and actions and led to his following and confronting Martin, and provoking him, and that led to his shooting and killing Martin.

The state is likely going to argue the entire sequence of events which led to the shooting, to establish Zimmerman's mind-set and justify the second degree murder charge, and not just confine it to what was going on when Zimmerman actually fired his gun.

I see no part of the sequence of events that would justify a conclusion that Trayvon was accidentally killed in an act of extreme recklessness.

Yes, but none of that will be of any use in establishing that Zimmerman accidentally killed Trayvon in an act of extreme recklessness, which is what they really need to establish if they want to convict him of Depraved Heart Murder.

I posted comments from one of the guys who pushed the law through, he damn well should know what the law says.

Quote:

I posted the law, go back and read it.

I posted comments from one of the guys who pushed the law through, he damn well should know what the law says.

There is no allegation that zimmerman intended to cause bodily injury to martin,

there is however both allegation and evidence that Martin intended to do so to Zimmerman.