Neighborhood watch shooting in FL

[Captain Caveman]

Supposedly the prosecutor is going to reveal some new info this weekend or earlier. It will be interesting to see what else has come up.

Shouldn't that wait for the trial?

Why should that wait for trial? Nothing else has.

That's the problem. An arrest is necessary in order to properly determine if his actions warrant a conviction.

[Rip]

ok, I am hearing 2nd degree murder.

What is that by definition under Florida law? Wouldn't that require a premeditation?

[Smoove_B]

Second degree murder (As pointed out by Rip):

Under Florida law, second degree murder is the unlawful killing of a person 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. The maximum sentence for the crime is life in prison.

[Remus West]

I thought premeditation was strictly 1st degree.

[Rip]

Second degree murder (As pointed out by Rip):

Under Florida law, second degree murder is the unlawful killing of a person 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. The maximum sentence for the crime is life in prison.

I guess you don't need premeditation but good luck with depraved mind. Just don't see it unless there is something major we don't know.

[Smoove_B]

Apparently he's going to be in court over the next 24 hours. Figured for sure he was going to disappear.

Second-degree murder is typically brought in cases when there is a fight or other confrontation that results in death and but does involve a premeditated plan to kill.

Corey would not disclose Zimmerman's whereabouts for his safety but said that he will be in court within 24 hours.

I guess he hired a new attorney as well.

[Jag]

I guess he hired a new attorney as well.

I read that he found one on Twitter.

#imfuckedandneedalawyernow

[dbt1949]

And what happens if he's found not guilty? More protests and riots?

[gameoverman]

I don't see how they can get a conviction. Any 'new' evidence is going to seem fishy at this point. C'mon, after all the controversy and anger swelling up over this, they only found the definitive proof now?

I think the state is too chicken to admit there's no reason to charge him with the evidence they have.

[Blackhawk]

There was no other choice they could really have made. Put it in court, let the system try and do its job. By filing charges (even if they believed he would be found innocent), they pass the social buck. By releasing him they'd have started a firestorm.

[El Guapo]

Second degree murder (As pointed out by Rip):

Under Florida law, second degree murder is the unlawful killing of a person 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. The maximum sentence for the crime is life in prison.

I guess you don't need premeditation but good luck with depraved mind. Just don't see it unless there is something major we don't know.

I'm not sure that "depraved mind" is a meaningful requirement under the statute - I suspect it's just a fancier (slash archaic) way of saying that intent is required. I.e. prosecutors would have to show that Zimmerman fired the gun with intent to kill Trayvon Martin, as opposed to fire a warning shot or something.

It would be truly bizarre if someone who intended to and did kill someone via gunshot was found not guilty because they did not do so in a sufficiently depraved manner. But I guess this is Florida we're talking about.

[gameoverman]

That's another thing, if intent is an issue it gives an out to the jury.

For instance, if you shoot someone in the heat of the moment(ie an argument), that'd probably be manslaughter since you fired but with no intent of killing someone. If they charge him with second degree, meaning he shot Martin intending to kill him with that gunshot, the jury might feel that extra bit(intent) has reasonable doubt.

So, since manslaughter is off the table, the jury might then vote not guilty.

[Rip]

There was no other choice they could really have made. Put it in court, let the system try and do its job. By filing charges (even if they believed he would be found innocent), they pass the social buck. By releasing him they'd have started a firestorm.

Yep, pass the buck.

It will also conveniently push his going free till after the election.

Then assuming an Obama win he can blame the law and look to make SYG defeat across the nation by whatever means his parting cause.

I can't wait.

[El Guapo]

That's another thing, if intent is an issue it gives an out to the jury.

For instance, if you shoot someone in the heat of the moment(ie an argument), that'd probably be manslaughter since you fired but with no intent of killing someone. If they charge him with second degree, meaning he shot Martin intending to kill him with that gunshot, the jury might feel that extra bit(intent) has reasonable doubt.

So, since manslaughter is off the table, the jury might then vote not guilty.

Nope, you're confusing premeditation with intent. If you get into a furious argument and spur of the moment pull out your gun and shoot them intending for them to die, that's murder. It doesn't matter how long you intended to kill them, just that you did.

You could possibly argue that you only intended to wound the person, though I'd imagine that's a tough sell.

So in this case it really all does come down to the self-defense argument. If the jury doesn't buy that, Zimmerman's pretty much borked.

One curious aspect of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law is that evidently the court is required to hold a hearing on the validity of the self-defense argument before the trial is held. I gather that if the judge totally buys the argument that the case could be thrown out without trial, though I'd imagine the judge would be wary of doing that. But I wonder if that could have an adverse effect when it gets to the jury: if a jury member knows that a hearing is required on self-defense before the trial, and the case is still going to trial, they might assume that the self-defense argument is nonsense since the judge evidently didn't buy it.

[KingB]

This is turning into another OJ Simpson case. The crowds demand the results they want to see or they will riot.

[hepcat]

And if Zimmerman is convicted, other groups will riot. There's no evil side in this.

[El Guapo]

And if Zimmerman is convicted, other groups will riot. There's no evil side in this.

Well, there's one evil side in this.

[hepcat]

I would hate to have Gorilla Grod on a jury. He's a dick.

[KingB]

And if Zimmerman is convicted, other groups will riot. There's no evil side in this.

What other groups are going to riot?

[hepcat]

Why don't you tell us what "group" you're talking about first.

[KingB]

Why don't you tell us what "group" you're talking about first.

Black people hep that is who I am talking about. Black people are going to riot like they did with OJ and Rodney King. Now what group are you talking about?

[hepcat]

I kind of suspected that was going to be your answer but...

Wow. Just wow.

[Victoria Raverna]

Other groups like New Socialist Movement will riot or at least kill some black kids if Zimmerman is convicted.

[hepcat]

edit: cleaning up needless snark.

[Carpet_pissr]

:shock:

I kind of suspected that was going to be your answer but...

Wow. Just wow.

Come on, Hepcat. I'm as liberal or moreso than most on this board, but 1. you baited him to say "black people", then acted shocked when he said it and 2. If anyone DOES riot because of a ruling for the shooter in this case, do you think the majority of rioters would be 1. white 2. hispanic 3. Alaskan indian or 4. black? Surely you don't think that rioters would be balanced equally among all races, since rioting itself is colorblind?

I personally don't think this is a racial issue at all, and wish the racial hypesters (on both sides) would get the hell out of it, and let this be judged on its real issue, IMO, which is a horrible, pro-vigilante law. Should not matter one iota if the kid was white, black or chartreuse - he should not have been shot, period.

From what I have read, I don't doubt Mr. Trigger Happy Barney Fife would have loved to follow ANYone that looked suspicious in his neighborhood, whether black or otherwise. Maybe I'm just being naive though.

[hepcat]

edit: I was just surprised that he came out and just said "black people" as if the groups that rioted after the King trials were representative of an entire race. Or that the groups that have espoused violence in the Zimmerman incident are equally representative. If he meant just a vocal and violent minority of the community he mentions, then I apologize.

[Rip]

Other groups like New Socialist Movement will riot or at least kill some black kids if Zimmerman is convicted.

Bullshit.

They may protest but there will be no looting or rioting.

I am not convinced there would be if he he is acquitted but it is unfortunately possible.

[hepcat]

Other groups like New Socialist Movement will riot or at least kill some black kids if Zimmerman is convicted.

Bullshit.

They may protest but there will be no looting or rioting.

I am not convinced there would be if he he is acquitted but it is unfortunately possible.

you're right, of course.

At the end of the day, EXTREMISTS do these things. And extremism is not confined to just one race, nationality or religion.

[Carpet_pissr]

I was shocked that he came out and just said "black people" as if the groups that rioted after the Simpson and King trials were representative of the entire race. Or that the groups that have espoused violence in the Zimmerman incident are equally representative of an entire race.

If anyone DOES riot because of a ruling for the shooter in this case, do you think the majority of rioters would be 1. white 2. hispanic 3. Alaskan indian or 4. black?

I'm frankly surprised to discover that you seem to harbor the same classification system after reading your analogy.

You should be surprised because I am usually on the other side of these things, right there with you, which is why I felt I needed to point it out. I did not at all get the impression that the implication was that groups that rioted in previous cases were representative of the black population. Where did you get that? I think this might be the misunderstanding...because I got: "the majority of rioters were black", which is true. No racial over or under tones there at all, IMO.

With the further assumption that, in this case also, given that it has been made out to be a racial issue between white/and or latino(?) and black, or certainly trying to be sold as such (again, unfortunately), that the majority of potential rioters (I am still not sold on the idea that there will even be rioting, frankly), would certainly be black, if the decision goes in favor of Zimmerman. Just logic, not racism.

I mean, if you put this into political ideology terms instead of color (NRA vs anti-gun, pro-lifers vs. pro-choicers, etc), the same would apply. Just makes sense that those who seem to be on the receiving end of the short end of the justice stick, would likely be the most active in any kind of lawful or unlawful response to a verdict.

[hepcat]

I did not at all get the impression that the implication was that groups that rioted in previous cases were representative of the black population. Where did you get that?

Let's look at his exact words, shall we?

Black people hep that is who I am talking about. Black people are going to riot like they did with OJ and Rodney King. Now what group are you talking about?

If you're going to toss out things like that the least you could do is be clear you don't mean an entire race.

by the way,

I mean, if you put this into political ideology terms instead of color (NRA vs anti-gun, pro-lifers vs. pro-choicers, etc), the same would apply.

People choose their race?

Folks join those clubs because they support the majority of beliefs behind them. I don't think that analogy is working the way you want it to.

Yes, there are racial overtones to this case. That's unavoidable in our society I suppose. But that doesn't mean we should view this as an us versus them situation.

[Grifman]

I was shocked that he came out and just said "black people" as if the groups that rioted after the Simpson and King trials were representative of an entire race.

Uh, maybe I'm missing something but I don't believe there were any riots after the Simpson verdict. He was found innocent and I don't remember a bunch of white people hitting the streets in anger after that verdict. Am I totally forgetting something?

I will say that when the Simpson verdict was announced, I truly realized how divided this country was along racial lines and how racial perspectives differed (not that I am totally naive as I have been involved in urban Christian ministry for a number of years). I was waiting in line in a Chik-Fil-A which had a TV on turned to CNN when the verdict was announced. All of the African Americans started cheering all hollering while almost all of the whites looked absolutely stunned. It was really a sad moment, I thought.

[hepcat]

Sorry, I was just bringing up OJ because it was in the initial response from kingb. My mistake in not pointing out there were no riots involved.

edit: I went back and cleaned up a few of my replies. I'm suffering from insomnia again and was a little too harsh originally because it's making me cranky.

[tru1cy]

Why don't you tell us what "group" you're talking about first.

Black people hep that is who I am talking about. Black people are going to riot like they did with OJ and Rodney King. Now what group are you talking about?

You know I sort of resented this statement initially, but after giving it more thought this could be a possibility.

[Kasey Chang]

Idiots and anarchists riot over almost anything nowadays. Had SEVERAL riots in Oakland over that Oscar Grant thing a little while back. It's just an excuse for some **** looters to loot downtown stores.

The "charge" of 2nd degree murder is political expediency, IMHO. I don't think they have enough for a conviction, but they have to file for the highest "reasonable" charge they can just for PR. Remember, a jury or judge can always pick a lesser charge later, like manslaughter.

Zimmerman's Attorney (whoever gets the job) will move the venue. No way the trial will stay local.

[Carpet_pissr]

People choose their race?

Folks join those clubs because they support the majority of beliefs behind them. I don't think that analogy is working the way you want it to.

Touche. Sucky analogy. Hrm...I will quit here because instead of clarifying, I think I am murkifying (yeah, just made that up - BAM).

[Jag]

In college we rioted when the Mets won in 86. I didn't actually flip the police car, but I may have been in the crowd

[PLW]

I did not at all get the impression that the implication was that groups that rioted in previous cases were representative of the black population. Where did you get that?

Let's look at his exact words, shall we?

Black people hep that is who I am talking about. Black people are going to riot like they did with OJ and Rodney King. Now what group are you talking about?

If you're going to toss out things like that the least you could do is be clear you don't mean an entire race.

Yes, there are racial overtones to this case. That's unavoidable in our society I suppose. But that doesn't mean we should view this as an us versus them situation.

Do you really think he meant "all black people are going to riot"? That seems like an odd interpretation.

But,if you were going to explain who rioted in LA after Rodney King, how would you describe them? Note, also, it's not like they just happened to be black. Being black and being angry about the LAPD treated black people is pretty integral to the whole thing.

If you believe that something parallel to the LA Riots would occur if Zimmerman is acquitted, for much the same reasons, "Black" seems like a pretty appropriate description to me.

[Arcanis]

I guess I'm the only one who saw it as KingB being a smart ass. His initial statement sure seemed like there was going to be a riot no matter what the verdict in this case. Hep just stated half the argument (if Z is convicted) assuming that KingB only thought there would be riots if he was set free. KingB then asked who else would riot, and if he was talking about both sides in his initial statement I could see him being a smart ass at this point. Hep demands King reveal who he is talking about first so King feeds him exactly what he wanted to hear and hasn't been back since.

Maybe it is just me not knowing the whole story but just form this page I don't see where the outrage is coming from.

[hepcat]

Hep demands King reveal who he is talking about first so King feeds him exactly what he wanted to hear and hasn't been back since.

...or it could be that Hep hoped King would use his question as a chance to clarify his earlier statement.

My original reply to his first post about rioting was just a "hey, there are idiots and extremists on both sides of the issue". I should have just stopped there instead of letting it escalate.

[El Guapo]

Remember, a jury or judge can always pick a lesser charge later, like manslaughter.

Is this true? This is where not being a criminal attorney limits me. But I'm not so sure that the jury has the opportunity to choose violations that weren't charged.