Do you think Zimmerman will be convicted of murder?

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge any deficiencies does not mean that they do not exist.

oralloy wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Orally can barely function in reality, let alone hypothetical situations.

Says the clown who can't point our any flaws in my position.

Your position that you are Florida?

I think that flaw has been pointed out and you ignore it.

Florida doesn't define it's law as depraved heart. It never uses that definition in it's law. When you claim they do, it is a flaw in your position.

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:

Is it 2nd degree murder if you play Russian roulette and someone shoots themselves?

In a state that defines second degree murder as depraved heart murder, oddly enough, probably yes.

Are you saying that if they put someone in a position where they may be hurt even if you don't intend to kill them that is 2nd degree murder?

Are you saying the person charged with 2nd degree murder is in no danger? Heck, they don't even have to pull the trigger.

oralloy, if you assert that your comments are fact based, and connected to reality, cite some references from Florida case law to support your statements regarding what the state of Florida has to prove in a 2nd degree murder charge.

oralloy fails to see that, by charging Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder, they also intend to prove that he created the dangerous condition that led to the death of Martin.

That will likely include Zimmerman's getting out of his car, following, and confronting Martin--which are all provocative actions, which point to Zimmerman as the instigator and creator of the dangerous condition for Martin. What made the condition most dangerous for the unarmed Martin was the fact that Zimmerman was armed with a weapon while doing all of those things. And, after provoking Martin into a fight, Zimmerman needlessly killed him with that weapon while Martin was trying to defend himself from someone he saw as menacing him.

And, what motivated Zimmerman's actions to respond to Martin as "suspicious", to call the police, and to follow and confront him, seems mainly based on racial profiling--he was a young black male wearing a hoodie, and fit Zimmerman's perception of criminal types in that housing complex--and fit Zimmerman's perception of the (criminal) person he was shooting at when he killed him. Acting on such erroneous perceptions--and the animus inherent in them--would also constitute a "deranged mind".

And, if oralloy would bother to look at and read the evidence which has been made publicly available, he would see that there is evidence to back up a charge of 2nd degree murder based on that sort of scenario, and to challenge Zimmerman's claim of justifiable self-defense.

The state may, or may not, be able to convince a jury at trial, but they do have evidence to support a 2nd degree murder charge.

Why? The language of the statute is clear enough.

What Orally fails to see is that sites like free republic are full of nutjobs talking to nutjobs, and are completely disconnected from reality.

oralloy wrote:

Why? The language of the statute is clear enough.

The language of the Florida statute is quite clear, but you haven't been referring to, or using, the language of the statute.

Now all they need is some sort of evidence that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon, and provoked the fight.

No, to prove a depraved mind, they would need to show that Zimmerman shot Trayvon for the fun of it, without seeing him as any threat whatsoever.

oralloy wrote:

Now all they need is some sort of evidence that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon, and provoked the fight.

They have it--that's why the girl who was on the phone with Martin, while Zimmerman was following him, and when he finally confronted Martin, is an important witness.

You are simply unfamiliar with the evidence in this case.

oralloy wrote:

No, to prove a depraved mind, they would need to show that Zimmerman shot Trayvon for the fun of it, without seeing him as any threat whatsoever.

You have to be joking--you can't possibly be that clueless about the law, can you?

Prove you're not that clueless by citing actual Florida law to back up that statement.

Except that an alligator egg is not the same as a chicken egg.

Except that an alligator egg is not the same as a chicken egg.

I accurately stated what would be required for a depraved mind.

You're the one insisting that they're one and the same.

I have no interest in what a "depraved heart murder" is, because I can refer directly to the Florida law.

It's some kind of bizarre mirror to the strawman fallacy.

He's not a deep thinker.

The jury is not free to make up their own definitions, or interpretations, as oralloy is doing.

oralloy wrote:

I accurately stated what would be required for a depraved mind.

No, you did not cite actual Florida law on the meaning of "depraved mind"--or how it has been interpreted in actual Florida case law--so there is no factual basis for your claim of accuracy.