Man follows black teen who seems "suspicious" and kills him.

Originally posted by Oliver North
murder 1? pre-meditated murder....?

lol

You didn't know you can get a murder 1 charge for killing a "child"/minor?

To put it more directly instead of laughing at your ignorance (like you thought you were doing to mine, lol, like...wtf man?), the second degree murder charge can be escalated to murder 1 if it causes the death of a minor.

In fact, as the Florida law reads on murder 2, it would be difficult to pin a murder 2 charge on Zimmerman if it could be shown he approached the situation, ready to fire his gun. In order to get the second degree charge, you have to prove that he had no intention to kill anyone (but still, "without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual" makes it difficult to pin a murder 2 charge on him) ...which is difficult to do if he approaches it with a clear intent to use his gun. IIRC, people have gotten murder 1 for lesser approaches.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html

Originally posted by Oliver North
Again, Martin would not have to show he was in any danger, merely that he perceived he was in danger, and there is no necessity that Zimmerman actually even provoke a conflict.

The bolded part is incorrect. It has to be "reasonable " which means, in lawyer speak, that a person has to have a reasonable justification. If this (whether or not a reasonable person could justify the actions) cannot be agreed upon or is too gray, it will sometimes go to a jury. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the judge waived the motion to acquit twice because of this (too gray and needed to be decided by a jury). In Zimmerman's case, it was difficult to distinguish whether or not his response to Martin, using deadly force, was "reasonable". If what you said was true, there would not have been a trial.

Originally posted by Oliver North Florida law makes no mention of intent or proportionality of response in terms of self-defense. The only considerations are about the perceptions of the person doing the defending. It doesn't matter if Zimmerman had a justifiable reason to confront or follow or approach Martin, all that matters is that Martin perceived it as a threat to his safety. [/B]

But it does specifically use the word "reasonable" which substantially changes the direction you should be interpreting the law.

By your logic, a person with some really really suspicious approaches to other people (but not insane0 is justified in killing anyone they see because that person suspects them of wanting to cause serious harm. Obviously, such a person is probably legally insane but just pretend they are not.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
or maybe he'll get shot by a white neighborhood surveillance pseudo-cop because he took a shortcut home while being hispanic.

No worries: the pseudo-cop will only kill Zimmerman's Hispanic half.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You didn't know you can get a murder 1 charge for killing a "child"/minor?

To put it more directly instead of laughing at your ignorance (like you thought you were doing to mine, lol, like...wtf man?), the second degree murder charge can be escalated to murder 1 if it causes the death of a minor.

In fact, as the Florida law reads on murder 2, it would be difficult to pin a murder 2 charge on Zimmerman if it could be shown he approached the situation, ready to fire his gun. In order to get the second degree charge, you have to prove that he had no intention to kill anyone (but still, "without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual" makes it difficult to pin a murder 2 charge on him) ...which is difficult to do if he approaches it with a clear intent to use his gun. IIRC, people have gotten murder 1 for lesser approaches.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html

The bolded part is incorrect. It has to be "reasonable " which means, in lawyer speak, that a person has to have a reasonable justification. If this (whether or not a reasonable person could justify the actions) cannot be agreed upon or is too gray, it will sometimes go to a jury. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the judge waived the motion to acquit twice because of this (too gray and needed to be decided by a jury). In Zimmerman's case, it was difficult to distinguish whether or not his response to Martin, using deadly force, was "reasonable". If what you said was true, there would not have been a trial.

But it does specifically use the word "reasonable" which substantially changes the direction you should be interpreting the law.

By your logic, a person with some really really suspicious approaches to other people (but not insane0 is justified in killing anyone they see because that person suspects them of wanting to cause serious harm. Obviously, such a person is probably legally insane but just pretend they are not.

you should check the precedence for what is considered "reasonable" under Florida law. The judge never commented on why she rejected the motion for acquittal.

Originally posted by Oliver North
The judge never commented on why she rejected the motion for acquittal.

That's just my assumption.

And the precedence cases are why I hold the position that I do. 🙂

Originally posted by dadudemon
No worries: the pseudo-cop will only kill Zimmerman's Hispanic half.

Is that.... is that possible..?

In Florida it probably is.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's just my assumption.

And the precedence cases are why I hold the position that I do. 🙂

fair enough... all things being equal, I still think Martin is easily as likely to get off as Zimmerman was.

to be fair though, I think the motion for acquittal rested much more on Zimmerman's intent, which is what the lawyers argued about primarily. Both murder 1 & 2 require specific malicious intent against the victim (and in fact are almost never found in cases where the victim and killer don't know one another to build such a negative rapport), the defense had far more cases that showed what I would describe as incredible maliciousness (pile-driving a man into concrete for being bumped into in a mosh pit, causing death) that were not considered intent, thus, they argued even if Zimmerman was a racist profiling a teen, there was no evidence he specifically wanted to murder him, thus, no intent for the murder charge. [actually, this was why the prosecution was fixated on the "****ing punks" line, trying to fit Zimmerman saying that with malicious intent against Martin, which I would agree is a massive stretch with nothing corroborating it]

The obvious question is, why didn't they acquit for self-defense then, if there were no real arguments about whether Zimmerman acted in self-defense or not. Basically, if the prosecution's story were correct, the murder began when Zimmerman pursued Martin, calling him a ****ing punk and *******, with the intent to put him down, whereas the self-defense plea only comes into play after the altercation begins. In the prosecution's position, the murder is already taking place and began while Zimmerman was still on the phone (essentially), in the defense's, Zimmerman is only starting to defend himself after the altercation, and everything that came before it was entirely legal, reasonable, and not evidence of malicious intent.

Viewed like that, I can see why the judge didn't acquit, because there was some interpretation of the event that would preclude the self-defense plea (ie: if Zimmerman is already committing a murder, its not self-defense when he completes the act), but also agree with the jury that the prosecution did not come close to meeting the standard necessary to prove that crime. But it also explains why there was a major focus on intent rather than who was justified in defending themselves when. Basically, I don't think the prosecution would argue that Zimmerman wasn't defending himself, but they would suggest he was defending himself from the victim of the murder he had already determined to commit.

(I think murder 1 works much differently here than in Florida... To get it here, you need like, to plan out an actual murder... no, actually in reading your link it seems to work exactly as I thought it did... what part specifically did you want me to look at? like, here is the blurb on murder 2:

(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.
(3) When a human being is killed during the perpetration of, or during the attempt to perpetrate, any:
(a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
(b) Arson,
(c) Sexual battery,
(d) Robbery,
(e) Burglary,
(f) Kidnapping,
(g) Escape,
(h) Aggravated child abuse,
(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j) Aircraft piracy,
(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l) Carjacking,
(m) Home-invasion robbery,
(n) Aggravated stalking,
(o) Murder of another human being,
(p) Aggravated fleeing or eluding with serious bodily injury or death,
(q) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(r) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,
by a person other than the person engaged in the perpetration of or in the attempt to perpetrate such felony, the person perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate such felony commits murder in the second degree, which 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.

mentions the need for intent or a deranged mind, nothing about minors... The reason this would be a murder 2 and not a murder 1 is that the prosecution was arguing that Zimmerman had malicious intent, but not the premeditation of killing Martin, when he approached; even if he had his gun out it would be hard to prove premeditation in that context... like, very hard. Short of a confession to the tune of "I knew I was going to kill that individual when I got out of the car", probably impossible)

Originally posted by juggerman
Is that.... is that possible..?

Yeah, Hispanic is already like half white. You can't kill a quarter of someone!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yeah, Hispanic is already like half white. You can't kill a quarter of someone!

Originally posted by Raisen
ignorant and racist.

😂

Originally posted by Raisen
most Mexican people are mostly indigenous.

I suppose if we're really going to do this I should start by pointing out that Zimmerman's mother was from Peru, not Mexico.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
😂

I suppose if we're really going to do this I should start by pointing out that Zimmerman's mother was from Peru, not Mexico.

Peruvians are different, as are Argentinians etc. however, most of the Hispanic culture has become indigenous, barring Argentinians for the most part

i.e. you're still ignorant and racist. tho i'm sure you are going to disagree with me on this "based off what you learned in school" compared to what I grew up with as one of the culture. aren't you symmetric chaos?

YouTube video

Originally posted by focus4chumps
i love it when white people get together on the internet and decide that racism no longer exists, so black people should stfu and stop complaining like they always do.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
YouTube video

While I did like Obama acknowledging the statistics regarding African Americans (he acknowledged both sides including the violent young black teens side), it was difficult to watch him speak so brokenly. It got irritating after a while and I made it only 10 minutes in. Just spit it out, stop saying um, and pausing so much?

Too much time was spent on this.

Also, I lock my doors when homeless white guys walk near my car when my children are with me. When they aren't, I offer rides. I'm racist against white people, I guess.

People are missing the point. He's not advocating racism. He's simply offering context to people who can't(or are unwilling) to see why black people are so upset about this.

The point Obama brought up about "If Martin was armed....." was brought out by Tavis Smiley in another brutal smackdown on O'Reilly's terrible excuse for a show earlier this week.

YouTube video

Originally posted by Darth Martin
People are missing the point. He's not advocating racism.

I hope I didn't make it seem like I thought he was advocating racism.

I was admitting to my own racism because I do the same things to white people that used to do to him (locking the car doors).

Originally posted by dadudemon
I hope I didn't make it seem like I thought he was advocating racism.

I was admitting to my own racism because I do the same things to white people that used to do to him (locking the car doors).

It's good you admit to your racism, it's sad that you think you are racist for the wrong reasons.

It got irritating after a while and I made it only 10 minutes in. Just spit it out, stop saying um, and pausing so much?

Too much time was spent on this.

you're still ignorant and racist

Originally posted by Oliver North
The judge never commented on why she rejected the motion for acquittal.

You are making far too much of this. The only reason a judge needs to do that is because the judge thinks there is a question for the jury to decide. A summary acquittal only happens if, basically, the prosecution brought no evidence. If there is any actual issue to consider at all- like whether it was self-defence or not- then that is the jury's job.

So such an acquittal can be ruled out immediately, as there was actually quite a lot of direct evidence to consider as to whether it was pre-meditated or not and whether it was self-defence or not.

Originally posted by Raisen
Peruvians are different, as are Argentinians etc. however, most of the Hispanic culture has become indigenous, barring Argentinians for the most part

I'm not sure how indigenous a person who describes herself as Afro-Peruvian would be. Africa is like a whole different country than Peru.

Originally posted by Raisen
you're still ignorant and racist.

😂

Originally posted by Raisen
tho i'm sure you are going to disagree with me on this "based off what you learned in school" compared to what I grew up with as one of the culture. aren't you symmetric chaos?

Oh, yeah, totally. That's what's going on here.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's good you admit to your racism, it's sad that you think you are racist for the wrong reasons.