Do you think Zimmerman will be convicted of murder?

parados wrote:

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.

It seems rather a stretch to suggest that Zimmerman created the situation simply because he carried a gun.

There is nothing tortured about me pointing out the reality of what the second degree murder statute clearly means.

The suggestions that Zimmerman lied are a bit overblown.

More hand waving about "gambling with someone's life for no reason."

Sorry, but self-defense requires a specific reason - a reasonable fear for one's life.

oralloy wrote:

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

That is a bullshit argument oralloy and you should know it.

You don't get to shoot someone if you create the situation where they threaten you.

We can argue all day about who is at fault in creating the situation but in reality Zimmerman can never be completely absolved from all fault.

oralloy wrote:

No. That is an act that creates imminent danger.

So handing a loaded gun to anyone creates imminent danger even if you don't think they will shoot themselves? How is that possible oralloy that sometimes a loaded gun creates imminent danger and other times it doesn't? Such an argument means that the minute Zimmerman picked up a loaded gun he created imminent danger.

No, pointing out the requirements for second degree murder is not bullshit. It's just me providing the board with another dose of reality.

No kidding. Did you somehow miss the billion or so times where I clearly stated in this thread that that would count as manslaughter?

I have not seen convincing evidence that he is at fault

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:

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.

It seems rather a stretch to suggest that Zimmerman created the situation simply because he carried a gun.

Carrying the gun was only one part of the total picture. Your continued desire and obfuscation of only picking out one fact and saying "see that isn't dangerous" is ludicrous in it's logic and no jury will fall for that ****. Someone died. One of the actions leading up to that death was Zimmerman's decision to carry a gun even though he should not have under the circumstances. If Zimmerman had not carried the gun Martin would not have died from a gun shot wound.

You can't argue someone drove a car 150mph without also showing they got in that car. It is the first step in a series of actions that ultimately lead to the total picture.

oralloy wrote:

There is nothing tortured about me pointing out the reality of what the second degree murder statute clearly means.

Except you haven't pointed out what it means. You have ignored the actual words of the statute to provide your own tortured meaning.

Unfortunately for you (and fortunately for the rest of us), you don't get to define reality.

Your grasp on reality is loose, at best.

What kinds of medications are you on?

Pointing out reality is hardly obfuscation. Nothing Zimmerman did can plausibly be described as imminent danger that deliberately gambled with Trayvon's life.

Getting in the car is irrelevant.

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:

There is nothing tortured about me pointing out the reality of what the second degree murder statute clearly means.

Except you haven't pointed out what it means. You have ignored the actual words of the statute to provide your own tortured meaning.

Nope. I pointed out exactly what it means.

The fact that it doesn't say what you'd like it to say, does not make the meaning tortured.

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

I need to apologize to you. I'm sorry for thinking you are being an ass on purpose; it has become apparent that you are merely a victim of your brain chemistry.

I shall not aggravate you further.

oralloy wrote:

No, pointing out the requirements for second degree murder is not bullshit. It's just me providing the board with another dose of reality.

Then point out the part of the law that requires "gambling" before 2nd degree murder can be charged. Point to the specific part of the law. No such law exists in Florida.

Reckless disregard is NOT the same thing as gambling.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/reckless+disregard

oralloy wrote:

No kidding. Did you somehow miss the billion or so times where I clearly stated in this thread that that would count as manslaughter?

Not if it rises to 2nd degree murder.

oralloy wrote:

I have not seen convincing evidence that he is at fault

Except you have been arguing you have seen zero evidence. If you are only arguing you aren't convinced by the evidence then that is quite different from the majority of your statements.

oralloy wrote:

Pointing out reality is hardly obfuscation. Nothing Zimmerman did can plausibly be described as imminent danger that deliberately gambled with Trayvon's life.

As far as second degree murder - (we will ignore your gambling red herring)

To you no. To the prosecutors, yes. To the jury, we will have to wait and see. You have made a decision that simply refuses to put the evidence together as a whole and then you argue minutia.

oralloy wrote:

Getting in the car is irrelevant.

Actually, it's very relevant. If I can't reasonably show someone got in the car then I certainly can't show they were driving it. We can assume they got in it if they got out of it but that still makes the getting in relevant.

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:

There is nothing tortured about me pointing out the reality of what the second degree murder statute clearly means.

Except you haven't pointed out what it means. You have ignored the actual words of the statute to provide your own tortured meaning.

Nope. I pointed out exactly what it means.

The fact that it doesn't say what you'd like it to say, does not make the meaning tortured.

Yawn... the law doesn't include the words "depraved heart"

nor does it include the word "gamble" You are free to argue it means that but you are not free to argue the law says that.