Do you think Zimmerman will be convicted of murder?

Some people have color blindness.

Orally has fact blindness.

Orally has fact blindness.

Hand waver.

That's because he also makes up his own definition of "facts".

2+2 never equals 4 for oralloy, because then he doesn't know what to do with the remaining finger on his counting hand.

Your failure to challenge any of my facts is.... well it's pretty pathetic.

So what ironclad, written in stone, evidence is there that Zimmerman provoked the violence.

Not your opinion, nor your interpretation of the evidence, but ironclad, accepted by a jury, evidence.

In the part where they made their second degree murder statute Depraved Heart Murder.

(2) 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.

That hardly amounts to a concrete decision to gamble with someone's life. Gambling with someone's life would be shooting them just for the sake of shooting them.

If you ever feel like presenting that evidence, I will address it.

If you refuse to present it, I'll probably have to keep ignoring it though.

Here is the Florida statute.

Quote:

(2) 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.

There is no requirement that there be intent to risk someone's life. There is only the requirement that the act be imminently dangerous.

In fact one could drive a car at 150 miles an hour in a 30mph zone with no intent to risk anyone's life but you could be charged with 2nd degree murder if you kill a pedestrian.

So... will you admit you are wrong about requiring a concrete intention to risk anyone's life?

No. It requires a concrete intention to risk someone's life, or intention to do something you know is clearly risking someone's life.

http://able2know.org/topic/188223-139#post-5221706

...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:

That hardly amounts to a concrete decision to gamble with someone's life. Gambling with someone's life would be shooting them just for the sake of shooting them.

You have already admitted that someone could be charged with 2nd degree murder even though the person that died pulled the trigger. Why do you now require that the person charged shoot them for the sake of shooting them. THere is no such thing on the statute.

Fact - you are incapable of understanding the difference between no evidence and not agreeing with evidence.

It was one example of the sort of act that would rise to the level of imminent dangerousness...

The acts you are describing, like Zimmerman choosing to carry a gun, don't rise to the level of "imminently dangerous".

It isn't a requirement. It was one example of the sort of act that would rise to the level of imminent dangerousness.

I was trying to illustrate something that would be imminently dangerous, to contrast with Zimmerman's decision to merely carry a gun, which was not imminently dangerous.

If evidence were in any way valid, it would be pretty unlikely that I'd be disagreeing with it.

They are all facts that lead to the total picture.

The fact that police and neighborhood watch tell you to never do what he did because it is dangerous shows an argument that he couldn't have reasonably known it was dangerous is without merit.