This thread is not depressing, INVICTUS, it's infuriating.

It gives one cause to despair in humanity.

You give one cause to despair.

I was not made for internet forums!

Yes, he is charged with murder.

Why doesn't krellin's racism depress you?

No, it is depressing. You're pre-convicting a man based off of incomplete, incorrect, and inadmissible evidence, with a heaping helping of pure emotion dolloped on top. I have no time for the people here who say Martin was asking for it or for the racial nonsense peddled about, but those saying Zimmerman is transparently and obviously guilty are just as bad. The facts and the law simply do not support that view.

And he's charged with second degree murder, gavrilop, which means it was not willful, deliberate, premeditated, or committed in the course of a dangerous felony. Even the prosecution does not claim Zimmerman "decided to murder" Martin. This is what I mean when I say people are very uninformed about the actual facts of the case and are letting emotions and media-imposed misconceptions get in the way of seeing things as they really are.

"Even the prosecution does not claim Zimmerman "decided to murder" Martin. "

Well, to be clear, that could easily be because they knew they couldn't win the case if they went with 1st degree murder. It has no bearing on what actually happened.

"Well, to be clear, that could easily be because they knew they couldn't win the case if they went with 1st degree murder. It has no bearing on what actually happened."

Yeah, evidence doesn't matter, just emotions.


They can't win on second degree murder. If Zimmerman's convicted, it'll be because the jury decided to go with manslaughter, as they can in Florida.

"Yeah, evidence doesn't matter, just emotions."

This sentence was so convincing, I had to go back and check, but as it turns out, that isn't what I said at all.

> I have no time for the people here who say Martin was asking for it or for the racial nonsense peddled about

But you don't say a word about it until now. Your priorities are obvious.

> You're pre-convicting a man based off of incomplete, incorrect, and inadmissible evidence

I'm not on the jury, so I can't convict him. Your view that he's innocent is based on incomplete evidence. Some evidence must be incorrect because it contradicts other evidence. And I don't, and shouldn't, give a fuck what's inadmissible in court, because I'm not on the jury!

> And he's charged with second degree murder, gavrilop

http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?threadID=1025632&page-thread=1#1026249

> which means it was not willful,

Wrong.

> deliberate,

Wrong.

> premeditated,

Correct.

> or committed in the course of a dangerous felony.

Wrong.

> Even the prosecution does not claim Zimmerman "decided to murder" Martin.

Yes they do. "He shot him for the worst of all reasons — because he wanted to." http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/24/trayvon-martin-opening-statement-george-zimmerman/2451819/

> This is what I mean

What you mean is that you think anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant. You're not having a discussion about why anyone disagrees; you're just throwing shit. Fuck you.

There is no reason to think first degree murder is an appropriate charge at all. There is no evidence for it. There is barely enough for second degree. People get charged based on what evidence there is, and we can only possibly determine what happened based on evidence. Without evidence you're just making things up and making inferences and leaps of logic which are chilling and dangerous in a court case.

"Your view that he's innocent is based on incomplete evidence. Some evidence must be incorrect because it contradicts other evidence. And I don't, and shouldn't, give a fuck what's inadmissible in court, because I'm not on the jury! "

So you're ok with being an ignoramus with no sense justice or the importance of a fair trial. That's your perogative, but it's not something one should be proud of.


I don't know what the list is supposed to mean. Are you saying it was premeditated? Because, again, that's not what the prosecution says. Rhetoric in the opening statement != what the charge actually is.


Much of what I say can't be legitimately disagreed with because it's simply what the facts are. Like the definition of second degree murder. I don't even claim to know that Zimmerman is guilty or innocent, just that he needs a fair trial like any other person in an American court, and that it seems more likely than not that he'll be acquitted. This is controversial now?

@Cachimbo - Marine Corps! Shock troops! Devil dogs! Blood sucking war machines! ... I've seen amd been in a fucking hell of a lot worse than MMA.

> So you're ok with being an ignoramus with no sense justice or the importance of a fair trial.

I think it's very important that he gets a fair trial.

I think it's so important, that if I were a potential juror, I would inform the judge that I already know Zimmerman is a racist murderer.

> I don't know what the list is supposed to mean. Are you saying it was premeditated? Because, again, that's not what the prosecution says.

The list is what you said, and what you were right and wrong about. You were correct about one thing: the charge of second degree murder does mean it wasn't premeditated. And I agree; I think he originally decided to assault Martin, and only later decided to murder him.

@Invictus

The facts that I see are:

1) Zimmerman had a history of racial profiling

2) He directly disobeyed police by following after someone who clearly posed no immediate threat.

3) An altercation occurred and Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.

Now I mostly agree that the instant in time Zimmerman pulled the trigger, he was doing so to save his life. However, IMHO, he was only in that position because he deliberately put himself in a dangerous position with the clear intention of starting some sort of incident.

What in the above so you think is wrong?

1 isn't really as important as has been made out. What matters is the fight itself, not the kinds of people either of the two were. And, let's face facts, if it was young black men who were committing the robberies in the neighborhood it's not an illegitimate profiling to begin with. Incorrect, it turns out, but not unreasonable from the get-go.

2 is wrong. He was talking to a 911 operator, not the police. The fact that you can be so misinformed on a crucial element like that makes me question how much you really know about the case. From the audio, it's unclear whether he followed after the operator told him not to or not. We just hear him say "OK." And even if he did keep following Martin, that in itself is not a crime. A 911 operator is not some authority that can order people around like a police officer.

3 is correct.


Again, I'm not carrying water for Zimmerman. It's totally possible that he is guilty as charged. From how I see it, he's a quite unlikable guy who nevertheless is not guilty of second degree murder. The point, however, is that he's convicted based on the actual evidence and by uninformed public perceptions.

I still don't understand what gavrilop was trying to say with the list. If any of those criteria are met it means it's a first-degree murder. And, since none are, it isn't.

1). I think this is relevant if you're trying to provide he had malicious intentions.

2) I'm not saying it was a crime to disobey the operator, I'm saying it was stupid and is suspicious. The police were coming and Martin wasn't in the act of committing a crime. What justification was there for following him? Again, not saying this act alone is illegal, but I think it helps to create a pattern.

3). OK

abgemacht, are you on the jury? You're supposed to be sequestered!

> I still don't understand what gavrilop was trying to say with the list. If any of those criteria are met it means it's a first-degree murder.

Wrong! This is the Florida statute:

"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."

The murder may or may not be willful. It may or may not be deliberate. It may not be premeditated. It must be committed in the course of a dangerous act, but that act may or may not be a felony.

1a. I don't know what you mean by "malicious intentions."

2a. Again, what matters is the fight. What the operator said doesn't matter much. And I see you've avoided my pointing out your huge error.

@ Draugnar:

Before hand your comments were just bigoted and poorly argued.

Your last comment, however, was a wonderful exercise in a waste of words. Not only did it fail to address what the point I was making (which, I believe, was accessible to the most fragile mind), but it more importantly failed to actually articulate any idea relevant to these discussions.

If you wanted to excuse yourself from the discussion, you just had to say so.

This, I hope, were the last words you and I will ever exchange (you can still throw a jumble of them my way any time, but I fear they will not be met with any further response).

I will say this:

As far as I understand the American and Canadian criminal courts, character actually does matter as it establishes probability that certain actions were committed with certain designs. You are perfectly correct to say that the law doesn't say so on paper, but this is indeed how our courts operate.

Abge , I know by site most people in my neigborhood. We dan assume Zimmerman did, too. Why was he followng him? Because the police are fuckng useless - they don't prefent crime....they clean up messes. He saw someone in clothing that hid his appearance....we'll call it camoflage or a disguise, not a "hoodie"...walking at night, possibly in the rain. This IS WORTHY of observation.

When we see strange people walkingin OUR neighborhood, we watch them. My prents did the same, and many people I know thnk it is *completly* reasonable to watchna stranger in the neighborhood.
What is NOT reasonable is for a child in a neighborhood NOT his own to turn and ttavk an adult...excuse me....to turn an attack the cracker asshole he had a rcial bias against...

I can wait until a few of you kids are grown up, maried and have kids of your own in a house you are paying for. At this point in your life, you will begin to view thinps differntly...including how you view punk kids you don't recognize wanring throughnyour neighborhood. At the very least, if you are rational, you will take note of ten, and keep amd eye on them.

1 The prosecution needs to prove murder, no? I think showing that Zimmerman targeted people based on race in the past would be relevant to that. Am I wrong?

2. I knew it was an operator. I condensed my sentence because I'm on a tablet at it wasn't relevant to my point.

Caselaw, gavrilop? You can't just throw that out there and declare victory. What has "premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual" been interpreted to mean? The fact that you so grossly misunderstood the felony and dangerous act references (what I said above refers to, say, killing someone while you rob a bank) however, makes me think even less of your understanding of anything remotely related to the law.

1. Why does his calling the police when he sees young black men he doesn't recognize in the neighborhood lead to him murdering Trayvon Martin? It doesn't and that's why, last time I saw new updates on the case, the defense was arguing to no have the jury hear or know about the previous calls.

2. Suspicious. Operator is a very different thing than police.

I highly doubt that at any point in my life will I use my neighborhood as a playground to play the most dangerous game.

Suspicious because you think I'm a liar or an idiot?

http://m.nypost.com/p/news/national/describes_jumped_confrontation_trayvon_I5bI2yMehibUIdCyF6XT8H?utm_source=SFnewyorkpost&utm_medium=SFnewyorkpost

Neither, it just seems like a mistake someone who was following it as anything more than background noise wouldn't make. No need to get excited.

"I highly doubt that at any point in my life will I use my neighborhood as a playground to play the most dangerous game."

Zimmerman didn't either. The prosecution is not claiming he did.

This trial really is the perfect storm. Good thing it's a Florida state case and we (for those of us outside of the State of Florida) don't have to worry about setting a bad precedent for self-defense cases if he's convicted. This is really about a man's right to self-defense and the practical application of concealed firearms. If Zimmerman hadn't had a gun that night and had approached Martin in the way that he did, Zimmerman would be dead.

This case also raises the question: Should a neighborhood watchman (or any concerned citizen for that matter) have a responsibility to confront a suspicious individual? In America, we have the right to make a citizen's arrest. I believe a neighborhood watchman who actually approaches suspicious individuals is more useful than someone who merely calls the police and hopes for the best.

This case also raises the concealed/open carry debate. If Zimmerman had been openly carrying, Martin would be alive. Then again, an open carrier of a firearm is going to be the first target of a homicidal ne'er-do-well in the event of an armed robbery in a public place. Personally, I would like to see a more widespread acceptance of openly carried firearms. Yes, it's a gun. Stop staring.