Do you think Zimmerman will be convicted of murder?

Mysterious references to some sort of "unknown mystery evidence" is a classic sign that an innocent person is being railroaded.

<sigh>

Back to this canard?

Florida 2nd Degree Murder statute doesn't say anything about malice.

You mean juries are routinely convinced by mysterious references to some sort of "unknown mystery evidence"?

I guess juries are made up of weak-minded people in your universe.

In my universe, defense attorneys are free to point out that evidence doesn't exist when it isn't presented in court.

Another canard...

the Florida statute says nothing about hearts,

or that he couldn't have intended to shoot Trayvon.

you're not welcome to make up your own facts.

For Zimmerman to be guilty of Depraved Heart Murder, they would have to prove the he did not intend to harm Trayvon at all, but rather that he accidentally shot Travon in a case of extreme negligence.

The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

oralloy wrote:

For Zimmerman to be guilty of Depraved Heart Murder, they would have to prove the he did not intend to harm Trayvon at all, but rather that he accidentally shot Travon in a case of extreme negligence.

No, that's not what they have to prove.

You can't make up your own definitions, oralloy

you have to stick to exactly how Florida law defines 2nd degree murder. It refers to "depraved mind"--not "depraved heart".

I suspect they might try to prove that Zimmerman had a particular obsession with blacks and crime in his housing complex, based on all his other previous calls to police about other black males he thought looked "suspicious", and that's why he reacted to seeing Martin, a young black male in a hoodie, by calling the police. And, because of that obsession, he didn't want Martin to elude him, or the police, so he impulsively disregarded the dispatcher's statement that he shouldn't follow Martin, and he continued to pursue him, ultimately provoking a confrontation with fatal results.

That whole sequence of behaviors could be presented as evidence of a "depraved mind" because it all stemmed from Zimmerman's mind-set toward unfamiliar black males in his housing complex, his wanna-be cop obsession with trying to catch criminals (which was not part of what a neighbor watch was supposed to do), and his inability to control his impulses, which affected his judgment about following and confronting Martin, and wound up causing a fatal encounter.

And, after provoking a physical confrontation, Zimmerman had an irrational fear of what Martin might do to him, since he thought he was a criminal, so he impulsively shot him in alleged "self-defense".

I think they might be able to make that sort of case to justify 2nd degree murder.

In actuality, Martin wasn't doing anything to suggest suspicious or criminal activity--he was coming back from the store with his purchases, to return to the residence where he was a guest, and he was walking around, talking on his cell phone with his girl friend as he did that. Even according to Zimmerman, that is all Martin was doing--wandering around.

Everything else, about what Martin might have been up to, and whether he was a burglar, or potential burglar, and why he needed to be followed before the police arrived, was going on in Zimmerman's mind and reflected Zimmerman's perception and interpretation of the situation and his interpretation of Martin's behavior. That's where "depraved mind" comes in.

I think if they focus on Zimmerman's mind-set about Martin, and raise all the inconsistencies in his version of events, and there were enough inconsistencies to raise doubts about his credibility, and point out that, while he showed signs of injury, he was not seriously enough injured to rationally be in fear for his life when he shot Martin, they may well be able to make a good case for second degree murder.

If not, they might be able to convict him of manslaughter.

Evidence is particularly lacking in the area of the claims that Zimmerman continued to pursue Trayvon and then provoked the confrontation.

I do really awesome when I adhere strongly to the truth.

oralloy wrote:

Evidence is particularly lacking in the area of the claims that Zimmerman continued to pursue Trayvon and then provoked the confrontation.

Evidence is not lacking.

Martin was talking on the phone as Zimmerman was watching and following him, and he told his girlfriend about this man I think he described as acting "crazy", and she became concerned about Martin's safety. The girl Martin was talking to on the phone is a witness for the state. The last thing she heard Martin say--apparently to Zimmerman, who had just confronted or come up to him-- was something like, "get off of me"--which suggests Zimmerman might have grabbed Martin in some way. This girl is an important witness.

Zimmerman's inconsistent versions of events do not reflect what Martin was describing to his girlfriend, and the inconsistencies themselves are damaging to his credibility.

DNA, or the lack of it where it should have been, does not support his description of the altercation.

And other evidence, even the position of Martin's body after he was shot, is not consistent with what Zimmerman said he did to the body after the shooting. All of the inconsistencies are damaging to Zimmerman's credibility.

The state will likely contend that Zimmerman targeted and followed Martin, mainly because he was a black kid in a hoodie, foolishly/recklessly confronted him in an aggressive or threatening manner, and provoked a defensive reaction of one punch from a kid who was frightened of this nut who had been following him in the dark and the rain, and then he shot this unarmed kid, he had already decided was some sort of criminal, because the situation he provoked scared him--not because lethal force was really needed or warranted because he felt his life was in jeopardy. Obviously, they will try to undercut his claim of self defense, and will try to prove that, because of his obsession with playing wanna-be cop, he provoked an altercation with an innocent kid, and then shot Martin, needlessly, to end it.

And they do have evidence to support that kind of scenario.

Believe me, they will not go by your interpretation of Florida law regarding 2nd degree murder

--they know what they have to prove, you don't.

oralloy wrote:

I do really awesome when I adhere strongly to the truth.

Maybe you should do that more often, then.

Maybe you should check on what the truth of the matter is; your version of "reality" can be checked against other sources, and your version is consistently found to be wrong.

Fact: you were mistaken about what constitutes second degree murder in Florida.

Fact: whatever a "depraved heart" murder is, it is not referenced in Florida law.

Fact: you're wrong,

and insisting that you're right in the face of evidence to the contrary

just makes you seem like (more of) a fool.

<yawn>

Color me surprised that you're doing the same thing you always do.

DrewDad wrote:

Fact: whatever a "depraved heart" murder is, it is not referenced in Florida law.

Wrong. Florida defines second degree murder as Depraved Heart Murder.

So, even though you "forgot" a fact and said something different you still haven't ever been wrong? What a strange world you live in oralloy when even when your facts are wrong you are still correct on the facts.

While Florida law may meet the general definition of "depraved heart" murder it is not referenced as such in Florida law.

It certainly is not defined by Florida as depraved heart murder.

You statement is factually incorrect as you stated it. Florida does not define second degree murder as depraved heart murder.

You define Florida's law as depraved heart murder. You are NOT Florida. A fact that seems to escape you.

So even though you were wrong, you were still right......