Do you think Zimmerman will be convicted of murder?

Quote:

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

The imminently dangerous act committed by Zimmerman was pointing his gun at Martin's chest and shooting him at close range.

And, in Zimmerman's case, it was an intentional act.

oralloy wrote:

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

That's like arguing you can't charge someone that kills a pedestrian while driving 150 miles an hour with 2nd degree murder because getting into a car isn't imminently dangerous and putting the car in drive isn't imminently dangerous.
They are all facts that lead to the total picture.

oralloy wrote:

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.

Zimmerman made choices that led to the final act. When someone dies you can hardly argue there was no danger.
Nor can you argue that no one would reasonably think his actions would lead to the dangerous situation. 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.

oralloy wrote:

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

But you keep asking, "Where is the evidence?" suggesting that you are unfamiliar with the evidence that the state has collected and publicly released.

If you are familiar with the evidence the state has released, which evidence do you feel is not valid, and why do you feel it is not valid?

Zimmerman pulled the trigger only because he believed his life to be in danger.

Now, if it can be proven that Zimmerman's belief was unreasonable, that's a case for manslaughter.

You're forgetting the fact that Zimmerman was not deliberately gambling with Trayvon's life.

Zimmerman pulled the trigger only because he believed his life to be in danger.

You are expecting oralloy to be able to connect the dots?

The police don't want neighborhood watch volunteers playing vigilantes, or trying to do their job for them--with good reason. And they don't want them carrying guns that could be used impulsively or inappropriately--or even be taken from them, and used against them, by a criminal. And Zimmerman certainly did know all of that.

He did? Did you go back in time and tell him personally?

oralloy wrote:

No. Simply carrying a gun is not imminent danger that amounts to gambling with people's lives.

Pulling a trigger is.

oralloy wrote:

Zimmerman pulled the trigger only because he believed his life to be in danger.

Now, if it can be proven that Zimmerman's belief was unreasonable, that's a case for manslaughter.

Um, no. The prosecution does not have to show Zimmerman's belief was unreasonable. The defense has to show that it was reasonable, and the prosecution get's its time to fight the claim.

oralloy wrote:

You're forgetting the fact that Zimmerman was not deliberately gambling with Trayvon's life.

Zimmerman pulled the trigger only because he believed his life to be in danger.

Zimmerman gambled by bringing a gun and by getting out of his car.

You are arguing that the person that loads the gun and hands it to the other person in a game of Russian roulette isn't responsible because he never thinks the gun will go off.

Only if he pulled the trigger for no reason, knowing he was in no danger from Trayvon.

No. That is an act that creates imminent danger.

Zimmerman created the situation by violating reasonable rules of neighborhood watch. He then killed someone because he violated those rules. You can't pretend those rules don't exist.

oralloy wrote:

He did? Did you go back in time and tell him personally?

Oh.. now you are going to pretend that Zimmerman was ignorant so he had no intent so therefor in your tortured version of 2nd degree murder he can't possible be guilty.

Did anyone personally tell the driver that going 150 in a 30mph was dangerous? Is that failure to be personally told enough to prevent them being charged with the act?

I'll add that Zimmerman has repeatedly undermined his own defense. He lied to the judge, tried to hide how much money he had, provided the police with different stories, etc.

His credibility is in the sewer, and the prosecution will get to point these issues out repeatedly.