Zimmerman vs. DMX - Boxing Match?

[Sniper08]

doesnt the stand your ground law protect zimmerman if it is found that martin attacked him first?

all of the evidence ive heard suggests that there was a fight and martin atleast threw one punch and that zimmerman was injured and shot him from very close range almost point blank.

[Neoteny]

Perhaps looking up the definitions of first and second degree murder will be helpful here?

No need to look at the definition of first degree murder, Zimmerman is charged with second degree.

Second degree murder is defined by Florida as thus-

"The crime of Second Degree Murder occurs when a person commits either:
A depraved mind
or
Accomplice Felony murder"

Florida's definition of "a depraved mind" as thus-

"Murder with a Depraved Mind occurs when a person is killed, without any premeditated design, by an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind showing no regard for human life."

The accomplice felony murder does not apply to Zimmerman. There was no other accomplice that killed Martin, Zimmerman killed Martin himself, thus, Zimmerman was not an accomplice to murder.


So, is that helpful? LOL

It did actually, when you consider that a poster recently said that murder includes an intent to kill. That's why I said it would be helpful to define it.

[patches70]

And the possible defenses against second degree murder are thus-

Excusable Homicide. This won't help or apply to Zimmerman. It wasn't an accident.

Justifiable Homicide. This might apply. The Florida definition is thus- "The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if done while resisting an attempt by someone to kill you or to commit a felony against you." If Zimmerman can show that Martin was trying to kill him then he might be able to get the homicide ruled as Justifiable.

Self Defense. This is what Zimmerman is likely to claim. This can be used by the judge to simply dismiss the entire case pretrial. If the judge does not do so, then the defense can still argue this to a jury as well.

These are not the only defenses against second degree murder. Such as insufficient evidence or affirmative defenses. We'll see soon enough how it goes.

[patches70]

doesnt the stand your ground law protect zimmerman if it is found that martin attacked him first?

all of the evidence ive heard suggests that there was a fight and martin atleast threw one punch and that zimmerman was injured and shot him from very close range almost point blank.

Maybe, it's up to a judge to decide if the stand your ground law applies. Even if it doesn't Zimmerman still has self defense and justifiable homicide defenses to argue in front of a jury.

And, to get a second degree murder charge, the prosecution has to prove second degree murder and that Zimmerman had a "depraved mind". Not an easy task for the prosecution at all, IMO.

Manslaughter would have been much, much easier to prosecute, and much harder to defend against.

[patches70]

Perhaps looking up the definitions of first and second degree murder will be helpful here?

No need to look at the definition of first degree murder, Zimmerman is charged with second degree.

Second degree murder is defined by Florida as thus-

"The crime of Second Degree Murder occurs when a person commits either:
A depraved mind
or
Accomplice Felony murder"

Florida's definition of "a depraved mind" as thus-

"Murder with a Depraved Mind occurs when a person is killed, without any premeditated design, by an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind showing no regard for human life."

The accomplice felony murder does not apply to Zimmerman. There was no other accomplice that killed Martin, Zimmerman killed Martin himself, thus, Zimmerman was not an accomplice to murder.


So, is that helpful? LOL

It did actually, when you consider that a poster recently said that murder includes an intent to kill. That's why I said it would be helpful to define it.

Intent to kill doesn't matter for second degree murder. If you were to commit armed robbery, steal a car and then accidentally run someone over and kill them, you could (should) be charged with second degree murder of that person you ran over, even though you didn't intend to kill them.
You were committing felonies and during the commission of those felonies someone got killed. That's second degree murder in the commission of a felony (accomplice felony murder). As it stands, that doesn't apply to Zimmerman at all.

The prosecution has to show "depraved mind" as intent. Some posters have inferred that Zimmerman went out looking to kill someone because he had a gun on him and therefore must have wanted to kill someone. I don't happen to believe that at all, but if that could be proven, then by all means, that's second degree murder with depraved mind. And the intent is to kill someone.

[Baron Von PWN]

Court records show George Zimmerman had a pair of black eyes, a nose fracture and two cuts to the back of his head.

Sounds to me like the case will be dismissed before trial.

What I want to know is if the prosecutor who charged him with 2nd degree murder had knowledge of these medical reports.

If a murderer sustains injuries while murdering someone does their murder become an act of self defense?

That Zimmerman was injured during his altercation with Martin doesn't prove one way or the other whether he was acting in self defense or not.

Your loaded statement is irrelevant and meaningless. You are not asking a question because you need an answer. Your question is designed to frame your point of view.

Murder is a premeditated intent to kill someone. If you can not understand that concept then you either are ignorant of what is needed to have rational discourse or are looking to cause further strife.

Second degree murder specifically states it isn't premeditated. Perhaps you should pause and consider things before ranting at other posters.


Anyways my point of view is that simply being injured doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

How is my question irrelevant? If I try to murder someone but in the process of trying to murder them they fight back and I get injured, can I then claim self defense?

How is that different from the possible scenario where Zimmerman initiates a confrontation with Martin and then loses and resorts to shooting?


Zimmerman could have started the fight. All we have is his word on the chain of events leading to Martin being shot.

I don't know what happened, and look forward to the trial clearing things up.

[Neoteny]

Perhaps looking up the definitions of first and second degree murder will be helpful here?

No need to look at the definition of first degree murder, Zimmerman is charged with second degree.

Second degree murder is defined by Florida as thus-

"The crime of Second Degree Murder occurs when a person commits either:
A depraved mind
or
Accomplice Felony murder"

Florida's definition of "a depraved mind" as thus-

"Murder with a Depraved Mind occurs when a person is killed, without any premeditated design, by an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind showing no regard for human life."

The accomplice felony murder does not apply to Zimmerman. There was no other accomplice that killed Martin, Zimmerman killed Martin himself, thus, Zimmerman was not an accomplice to murder.


So, is that helpful? LOL

It did actually, when you consider that a poster recently said that murder includes an intent to kill. That's why I said it would be helpful to define it.

Intent to kill doesn't matter for second degree murder. If you were to commit armed robbery, steal a car and then accidentally run someone over and kill them, you could (should) be charged with second degree murder of that person you ran over, even though you didn't intend to kill them.
You were committing felonies and during the commission of those felonies someone got killed. That's second degree murder in the commission of a felony (accomplice felony murder). As it stands, that doesn't apply to Zimmerman at all.

The prosecution has to show "depraved mind" as intent. Some posters have inferred that Zimmerman went out looking to kill someone because he had a gun on him and therefore must have wanted to kill someone. I don't happen to believe that at all, but if that could be proven, then by all means, that's second degree murder with depraved mind. And the intent is to kill someone.

You're arguing against a phantom here. I don't think it was premeditated, and I do think they have their work cut out for them as far as making a second degree charge stick. My only point was that "murder is a premeditated attempt to kill someone" is wrong. That's simply false; indeed demonstrated so by your own reasoning. Do you think all murder is premeditated? If no, then we are in agreement with each other and BvP, and disagreement with Iron Butterfly.

[patches70]

[
You're arguing against a phantom here. I don't think it was premeditated, and I do think they have their work cut out for them as far as making a second degree charge stick. My only point was that "murder is a premeditated attempt to kill someone" is wrong. That's simply false; indeed demonstrated so by your own reasoning. Do you think all murder is premeditated? If no, then we are in agreement with each other and BvP, and disagreement with Iron Butterfly.

<sigh>

You asked for a definition of second degree murder. I provided that. Then you said-

It did actually, when you consider that a poster recently said that murder includes an intent to kill. That's why I said it would be helpful to define it.

Now you are talking about intent. Which I then answered again towards intent.

What Zimmerman is charged with the prosecution will have to prove intent. Did Zimmerman confront Martin with the intent to kill him?

It certainly wasn't premeditated, thus the second degree murder charge. non intent only applies to Accomplice Felony Murder.
The charges against Zimmerman must prove that he intended to cause bodily harm to Martin with utter disregard to human life. I.E. "Depraved Mind".

No, not all murder is premeditated.

I don't know what you are arguing with Ironbutterfly or BBV. I was only speaking to your comments. I don't know who the "poster" was that you are talking about, I don't care. I wasn't arguing with you or admonishing you, I was merely compounding upon the role "intent" has in the charges. That's all, you either agree with me or you don't. No one else is included in the discussion at all. So don't use me to attack others, you can do your own dirty work. I was merely attempting to enlighten your own questions was all.

[Neoteny]

Context, friend. Context.

[bedub1]

Autopsy of Trayvon Martin was released.

A leaked autopsy reportedly shows that the bullet that killed Florida teen Trayvon Martin was fired from "intermediate range," which one forensics expert said means anywhere from one to 18 inches away.

The report backs the account of George Zimmerman who has said he fired into Martin's chest in self-defense as the youth was straddling and pummeling him.

This case is totally going to get tossed before trial.

[thegreekdog]

Intermediate range is 1 to 18 inches away? I'm going to look that up.

[thegreekdog takes his "Criminal Law" book off the shelf and throws it in the trash... I mean recycle bin. thegreekdog looks up on the internet... firm has blocked searches with the word "gun"... seriously].

Nevermind...

[Phatscotty]

Court records show George Zimmerman had a pair of black eyes, a nose fracture and two cuts to the back of his head.

Sounds to me like the case will be dismissed before trial.

What I want to know is if the prosecutor who charged him with 2nd degree murder had knowledge of these medical reports.

If a murderer sustains injuries while murdering someone does their murder become an act of self defense?

It bolsters the claim of self defense, in this case. That is, when eyewitness testimony and police evidence which suggests self defense isn't enough.

Nobody here is talking about all cases or all murderers. Your statement is loaded.

[Phatscotty]

doesnt the stand your ground law protect zimmerman if it is found that martin attacked him first?

all of the evidence ive heard suggests that there was a fight and martin atleast threw one punch and that zimmerman was injured and shot him from very close range almost point blank.

Maybe, it's up to a judge to decide if the stand your ground law applies. Even if it doesn't Zimmerman still has self defense and justifiable homicide defenses to argue in front of a jury.

And, to get a second degree murder charge, the prosecution has to prove second degree murder and that Zimmerman had a "depraved mind". Not an easy task for the prosecution at all, IMO.

Manslaughter would have been much, much easier to prosecute, and much harder to defend against.

Well in that case I hope the judge isn't up for re-election like the prosecutor is.

Wanted to add also, this is a clear cut example of a prosecutor over-charging. A lot like Casey Anthony's example.

[saxitoxin]

That Zimmerman was injured during his altercation with Martin doesn't prove one way or the other whether he was acting in self defense or not.

I agree with you in essence, however, Zimmerman isn't responsible for proving his innocence. The prosecutor is responsible for proving his guilt.

Every "expert" I've seen "the media" interview since yesterday seems to indicate the extent of the injuries make a conviction nearly impossible. Inquests and investigations are for unearthing facts, not trials -- it seems abusive to hold a trial just for the sake of having one, even if you know you can't get a conviction.

Even if the accused is exonerated in a trial they face embarrassment, disruption of life and loss of income. That's supposed to be what the grand jury guards against, though, they bypassed it in this case.

[Phatscotty]

Autopsy of Trayvon Martin was released.

A leaked autopsy reportedly shows that the bullet that killed Florida teen Trayvon Martin was fired from "intermediate range," which one forensics expert said means anywhere from one to 18 inches away.

The report backs the account of George Zimmerman who has said he fired into Martin's chest in self-defense as the youth was straddling and pummeling him.

This case is totally going to get tossed before trial.

I guess the mob justice theatrics are going to have to be played out. Not that the Democrat's didn't exploit this frenzy for all they could....as they managed to register 200,000 voters at all the "Justice for Trayvon" rallies.

This was a great way to get the dispossessed politically activated. Many people who showed up at the rallies are those who are least likely to vote.

This is the area where I give Obama the most credit for being "brilliant". Community Organizing, with Rules for Radicals.

Also, the autopsy of Trayvon showed that he had numerous cuts on his knuckles, suggesting he threw and landed numerous blows, possibly even with intent to kill.

[oVo]

There are a lot of questions about what happened that will never be answered and only one person who was a witness to this tragic event. The injuries Zimmerman sustained that night (fractured nose, black eyes & lacerations on the back of his head) are not an explanation of the series of actions that lead up to Martin being fatally shot at close range.

[Phatscotty]

There are a lot of questions about what happened that will never be answered and only one person who was a witness to this tragic event. The injuries Zimmerman sustained that night (fractured nose, black eyes & lacerations on the back of his head) are not an explanation of the series of actions that lead up to Martin being fatally shot at close range.

Sure, but people can still make observations about what all this looks like. It looks like self defense.

Zimmerman's story continues to gain support and evidence. At the beginning of this thread, many dismissed the Zimmerman injury issue based on lack of medical evidence. Now there is evidence that further supports his story and the witnesses statements. But now the medical evidence all of a sudden doesn't mean anything. That is a pattern that has existed throughout this thread. People who want to see Zimmerman behind bars tear down any assertions made without evidence, and then when the evidence comes out, just move on to the next part of the timeline where guilt can be pointed out.

[bedub1]

The prosecutor has released a load of information. There was THC found in Martin, which means jack shit, since THC stays around for up to 3 months.

including a police report that concluded "the encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman."

That should be interesting to see how it turns out.

[Phatscotty]

[BigBallinStalin]

1) Why is it wrong to refer to a guy who has a white parent and an hispanic parent as white, but right to refer to him as hispanic?

I have never heard anyone in Britain use the term "Asian-English" or "White-Asian" to refer to a person who is half-Pakistani and the use of a term like that would lead to a reasonable assumption of amphiboly.

Why is "Asian-English" not widely used? It's a fascinating etymological question but it seems a bit off-kilter to hysterically demand Scott accept responsibility for the evolution of the English language. I think I speak for the community when I express a rational desire to see the current level of crazy dialed back to about an 8 or 9 for a bit.

Barack Obama - 44th white president or 1st black president?

Are you Scott? You realise that responding to you justifies Saxi's trolling? I'll respond anyway, as you'll never object to the troll. Obama's both. Kind of my point in the first place.

Symmetry, I'm sorry you're extremely upset again, however, you should spend more energy responding to points than trying to play the role of Toto ... manic and - to date - futile attempts to sideline me by yelling at everyone I'm irrelevant. The more frantic your posts in this theme become - and they've grown ever more hysterical lately - the more cartoonish you appear. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do.

It bears noting that everyone already knows who is behind the curtain. Your wild-eyed pointing and exhortations for people to look at me have been accomplishing very little to improve the seriousness with which your comments are received by the community. You might either consider a different tactic or limit your posts to the Bigfoot and Alien Abduction threads. I hope you accept this friendly counsel in the spirit with which it is offered.

If you had single piece of humanity within your marrow, you would stop to consider how much destruction and emotional trauma that has been causes in this thread. Question: If the religious knights of old have no more retard for ceremony, then what is a young dictator to do these days?

[Phatscotty]

Why is my name in all that?

[PLAYER57832]

The bottom line to this is why would Zimmerman pursue this guy in the first place? He could have stopped this at any point. Given he had that option, the idea that this was imply self-defense is difficult. Even if, in the end, there was a point where he felt threatened, it is quite clear that he went after and pursued this event.

If I poke a bear with a stick and get struck, who is at fault? A man is not a bear. A man can be reasoned with as long as there is an option. If Trayvon threatened Zimmerman to that extent, then Zimmerman had to have pushed things to a great extent. Trayvon was not coming after Zimmerman, he had just appeared in a location where Zimmerman did not like to see him.

[Night Strike]

The bottom line to this is why would Zimmerman pursue this guy in the first place? He could have stopped this at any point. Given he had that option, the idea that this was imply self-defense is difficult. Even if, in the end, there was a point where he felt threatened, it is quite clear that he went after and pursued this event.

And there have now been a few different analyses published that have studied the 911 tape and concluded that Zimmerman stopped running after the 911 operator told him he didn't need to follow. And even if he did continue to follow him, that doesn't mean he started the fight or intended to kill him.

[AAFitz]

The bottom line to this is why would Zimmerman pursue this guy in the first place? He could have stopped this at any point. Given he had that option, the idea that this was imply self-defense is difficult. Even if, in the end, there was a point where he felt threatened, it is quite clear that he went after and pursued this event.

And there have now been a few different analyses published that have studied the 911 tape and concluded that Zimmerman stopped running after the 911 operator told him he didn't need to follow. And even if he did continue to follow him, that doesn't mean he started the fight or intended to kill him.

So, you are suggesting that you cannot defend yourself against a hispanic male carrying a gun, chasing you in your Dads neighborhood?

I suppose you would suggest shooting him would be ok, but punching him was what? Way over the line?

You really make this more fun than it should be.

[PLAYER57832]

The bottom line to this is why would Zimmerman pursue this guy in the first place? He could have stopped this at any point. Given he had that option, the idea that this was imply self-defense is difficult. Even if, in the end, there was a point where he felt threatened, it is quite clear that he went after and pursued this event.

And there have now been a few different analyses published that have studied the 911 tape and concluded that Zimmerman stopped running after the 911 operator told him he didn't need to follow. And even if he did continue to follow him, that doesn't mean he started the fight or intended to kill him.

If he had not followed, then there would not have been a fight.