This Person is a Member of the US House of Representatives

[Vladimir]

Really? Thought about it? How much time is enough time then?

There was no planning or deliberation. It was a response to a situation that he believed could end in his death.

[Whacker]

You guys are arguing with a brick wall. He will continue to have his opinions, regardless if they match up with legal reality or not. There's really nothing wrong with having an opinion anyway, even if it is misguided.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Thought? No, not in this universe. Planned in advance is more like it.

In advance of the act...

How far in advance?

It depends on the act, really, but in this case there is a certain amount of premeditation in his carrying a loaded weapon whilst out looking for criminals. That implies preparedness to use the weapon - added to which Zimmerman appears to have taken the deliberate decision to shoort Martin. "Planned in Advance" does not necessarily mean he went out to shoot someone, it merely means he took a decision and then carried it out.

[rvg]

"Planned in Advance" does not necessarily mean he went out to shoot someone

Yes it does.

[rvg]

You guys are arguing with a brick wall. He will continue to have his opinions, regardless if they match up with legal reality or not. There's really nothing wrong with having an opinion anyway, even if it is misguided.

You're right. I'm done.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You guys are arguing with a brick wall. He will continue to have his opinions, regardless if they match up with legal reality or not. There's really nothing wrong with having an opinion anyway, even if it is misguided.

In my (admittedly brief) period studying Law we covered premeditation - and it was far less than a complex worked out plan.

The question is how much thought Zimmerman put into shooting Martin - it was obviously a deliberate act, but you guys are presenting this as a considered choice, something you find agreeable. "him or me".

That makes the shooting, if not the killing, premeditated - even if only just.

Zimmerman's caliming self defence is implicitely claiming a logical decision - which rasies all sorts of arkward questions.

If you look back at what I wrote about what I think he's actually guilty of I said manslaughter, but that is precisely because I think his shooting of Martin was not justified and he acted without any though - and possibly had the weapon drawn when he approached Martin.

You think I'm a brick wall?

rvg doesn't care who dies, just so long as the killer gets away with it - so long as they were having a fight.

[Whacker]

In my (admittedly brief) period studying Law we covered premeditation - and it was far less than a complex worked out plan.

English law != US law, at all. Drawing parallels is highly tenuous at best.

The question is how much thought Zimmerman put into shooting Martin

We are telling you we don't think there was any immediately prior to the shooting, unless proven otherwise.

- it was obviously a deliberate act,

Deliberate, yes. Premeditated, planned, or thought out in advance, a resounding no. Unless they prove otherwise.

That makes the shooting, if not the killing, premeditated - even if only just.

No, it does not. Hence your highly flawed understanding of US law and these legal definitions.

but that is precisely because I think his shooting of Martin was not justified

In self defense against a credible lethal threat, it absolutely is. Disagree all you want.

and he acted without any though

Reaction to a credible lethal threat is almost always a snap judgment to a rapidly developing situation.

- and possibly had the weapon drawn when he approached Martin.

I don't believe that for one second. Trying to punch or assault someone with a drawn weapon is a death sentence, and though I do think he was a little thug and punk, Treyvon was not THAT stupid. Now you are demonstrating a woeful lack of understanding of human psychology when it comes to combat. I am NOT an expert on this, but I have trained with and learned extensively from people who are, and who train military and police forces on these subjects.

You think I'm a brick wall?

rvg doesn't care who dies, just so long as the killer gets away with it - so long as they were having a fight.

Yes, you are a brick wall. Going back and reading the majority of your posts here in the back room, as well as your self confessed mindsets and attitudes in your personal thread give a pretty clear picture of your personality. Your offensive statements about rvg and his mindset are just more examples of this, I read the complete opposite in his past few posts.

[Sir Moody]

English law != US law, at all. Drawing parallels is highly tenuous at best.

don't worry he is wrong in English Law as well - premeditation refers to intent and planning - it doesn't have to be much planning but there is a distinction

for example - if you draw a gun, walk into a bar and shoot someone that is premeditated - you intended (planned) to shoot someone in the bar

if instead you happen to have a gun and a bar fight breaks and during that fight you draw and shoot someone that isn't premeditated

if the Prosecution believed you took the gun to the bar to shoot someone and waited for the moment its up to them to prove you did not plan to shoot someone and not that the gun was for self defence

in this case its doubtful Zimmerman went out to shoot Martin - the gun was merely protection because he was living in fear (further evident from the viscous dog he bought for home defence) - while he may have gone out to confront him the question will still be did he assault Martin leading to the shooting or did he merely provoke Martin into assaulting him by confronting him

to be honest im not sure the prosecution can prove which of those is the case and the lead investigator was right - he should have been charged with Manslaughter not Murder

[The Stranger]

Some people always live in fear, some happy massacre that will be! God Bless America!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

English law != US law, at all. Drawing parallels is highly tenuous at best.

Oh come on, the principles are broadly the same, as are many of the definitions. They may not be identical but then neither is law in Florida to law in Alaska.

We are telling you we don't think there was any immediately prior to the shooting, unless proven otherwise.

Deliberate, yes. Premeditated, planned, or thought out in advance, a resounding no. Unless they prove otherwise.

I'll give that "premeditated" may be the wrong word - used in haste and pursued to a fault by myself, but this is surely still a deliberate act. It's not as though Zimmerman discharged his weapon accidentally - so some sort of thought must have gone through his mind. You can't have it both ways.

No, it does not. Hence your highly flawed understanding of US law and these legal definitions.

It remains a deliberate act. I also have misgivings about a man who goes to confront someone carrying a concealed weapon - what does that say about Zimmerman's state of mind? It looks like he was prepard to use lethal force ahead of time, and I'm still suspicious of how he managed to draw the gun from his jacket.

I'm also suspicious that a round was apparently already chambered - unless we are now saying Zimmerman was able to draw the weapon, cock it, disengage the safety, and discharge it.

In self defense against a credible lethal threat, it absolutely is. Disagree all you want.

Reaction to a credible lethal threat is almost always a snap judgment to a rapidly developing situation.

This "credible lethal threat" was an unarmed skinny 17 year old with some skittles and iced tea.

I don't believe that for one second. Trying to punch or assault someone with a drawn weapon is a death sentence, and though I do think he was a little thug and punk, Treyvon was not THAT stupid. Now you are demonstrating a woeful lack of understanding of human psychology when it comes to combat. I am NOT an expert on this, but I have trained with and learned extensively from people who are, and who train military and police forces on these subjects.

Yes, yes, I know. He was a thug who got what he deserved. Oddly enough I don't believe anyone deserves death - and if Martin got what he deserved that raises all sorts of moral questions about the man that shot him and his fate.

Whether or not Martin would rush Zimmerman depends on how scared he was - he'd have to be fairly scared to start punching him like that. If he was scared enough and thought Zimmerman was going to kill him any way he might have gone for the gun. Zimmerman himself saif they struggled over it.

People do stupid things, like charging machine gun nests - that has a fairly high mortality rate, too.

Yes, you are a brick wall. Going back and reading the majority of your posts here in the back room, as well as your self confessed mindsets and attitudes in your personal thread give a pretty clear picture of your personality. Your offensive statements about rvg and his mindset are just more examples of this, I read the complete opposite in his past few posts.

I cannot remember you ever being anything but rude to me, not to mention hateful of my religion, even though you don't understand, or attempt to understand, my personnal beliefs.

Pot kettle black.

I honestly cannot understand how you can tell me with a straight face that when an armed man kills and unarmed man in a scuffle the armed man should just be let off. rvg's statement that if Martin had killed Zimmerman he should also be let off is even more bizare.

Zimmerman's version of events is unconvincing, as is his portrait of Martin as a sociopath.

I just cannot understand how you people can be so lithe about homocide - as though people's lives only have value so long as they can defend them. It's bizare in the extreme that rvg can just sit there and say that whoever one the fight (by homocide) should have his version of events respected when the other side is unavailable by virtue of his being dead!

Nobody has a greater motive to distort the truth than Zimmerman, and therefore his account cannot be reliable.

don't worry he is wrong in English Law as well - premeditation refers to intent and planning - it doesn't have to be much planning but there is a distinction

for example - if you draw a gun, walk into a bar and shoot someone that is premeditated - you intended (planned) to shoot someone in the bar

if instead you happen to have a gun and a bar fight breaks and during that fight you draw and shoot someone that isn't premeditated

if the Prosecution believed you took the gun to the bar to shoot someone and waited for the moment its up to them to prove you did not plan to shoot someone and not that the gun was for self defence

in this case its doubtful Zimmerman went out to shoot Martin - the gun was merely protection because he was living in fear (further evident from the viscous dog he bought for home defence) - while he may have gone out to confront him the question will still be did he assault Martin leading to the shooting or did he merely provoke Martin into assaulting him by confronting him

to be honest im not sure the prosecution can prove which of those is the case and the lead investigator was right - he should have been charged with Manslaughter not Murder

I've already retracted the "premeditated" point - so I'll just say this. In the US you have "Second Degree" murder and it is my understanding that all that is required is the deliberate act, the traditional "malice of forethought" for that charge to stick.

It may be that Zimmerman will be able to convince a jury that he was seeing so many stars he didn't really know where the gun was pointing, or that he couldn't think clearly with his head being smashed into the pavement - but as Martin is dead he should still be tried.

[Whacker]

Oh come on, the principles are broadly the same, as are many of the definitions. They may not be identical but then neither is law in Florida to law in Alaska.

In some cases yes, in others no. You cannot paint with as broad a brush as you do.

I'll give that "premeditated" may be the wrong word - used in haste and pursued to a fault by myself, but this is surely still a deliberate act. It's not as though Zimmerman discharged his weapon accidentally - so some sort of thought must have gone through his mind. You can't have it both ways.

Never said it wasn't deliberate. We have said we highly doubt it was premeditated.

It remains a deliberate act.

On this we agree.

I also have misgivings about a man who goes to confront someone carrying a concealed weapon

People all across the US go armed with concealed carry permits. In the vast, vast majority of instances, one could have a conversation or interact with such a person and never know it. This means nothing.

- what does that say about Zimmerman's state of mind?

Absolutely nothing. Your anti-gun bias is really coming out.

It looks like he was prepard to use lethal force ahead of time

Again, your opinion.

, and I'm still suspicious of how he managed to draw the gun from his jacket.

I'm also suspicious that a round was apparently already chambered - unless we are now saying Zimmerman was able to draw the weapon, cock it, disengage the safety, and discharge it.

There's dozens and dozens of scenarios in which all of these could have happened. If you were actually HERE I could take you to my gym, or my friend's qwoon and we could go over these with you with fake weapons and protective fighting gear on. It's not remotely farfetched. Just because YOU don't see it, doesn't mean that it's unlikely or impossible. I also haven't heard anything about what is claimed to have happened, and until I do I reserve judgment.

This "credible lethal threat" was an unarmed skinny 17 year old with some skittles and iced tea.

You are still demonstrating your complete lack of understanding about humans fighting and combat. It is 100% entirely possible, and given what I've seen getting toward probable, that if Treyvon surprised Zimmerman in any way, it would have put him on the defensive and reeling. Your claim that a smaller person cannot or is highly unlikely to overpower a larger individual is completely baseless. Again, if you were actually here, I and my coaches and friends could definitively demonstrate these principles to you and have you even try them out for yourself, if you were so inclined.

Yes, yes, I know. He was a thug who got what he deserved. Oddly enough I don't believe anyone deserves death - and if Martin got what he deserved that raises all sorts of moral questions about the man that shot him and his fate.

Your words, not mine. I've never said or implied anything like that, quite the opposite in fact if you read back.

Whether or not Martin would rush Zimmerman depends on how scared he was - he'd have to be fairly scared to start punching him like that. If he was scared enough and thought Zimmerman was going to kill him any way he might have gone for the gun. Zimmerman himself saif they struggled over it.

Lack of understanding again. In survival situations fight or flight kicks in. A "normal" person when confronted with an "unwinnable" situation, such as the other person has a drawn gun, will not tempt fate as it were and would attempt to flee if possible. Hence fight or flight. If he were confronted in such a manner that he did not think flight was possible, then it's the fight reaction, this is possible depending on Zimmerman's actions. The other possibility is that he was a dumb punk or extremely foolish, and thought that he could take a few swings at Zimmerman, beat him up a bit and scare him off. There's another dozen possible combinations or scenarios. Some of them include Zimmerman being the aggressor, others not. Your basic presumption though has been that Zimmerman went at this with 1. a premeditation or mindset that he was going to use lethal force and even 2. he had the intent of causing a physical altercation. We are saying we don't agree with these, especially point 1.

People do stupid things, like charging machine gun nests - that has a fairly high mortality rate, too.

Completely, 100%, absolutely, unequivocally different situations that have zero relevance or similarity to each other.

I cannot remember you ever being anything but rude to me, not to mention hateful of my religion, even though you don't understand, or attempt to understand, my personnal beliefs.

Go back and start reading your posts some day. I understand you pretty well. You've actually become a bit of a weather vane for me I've found, with a few exceptions. My views and outlook on life are almost polar opposites from yours. You've been very quick to indicate when you find other's stated views and opinions offensive, and give extremely arrogant and judgmental replies. But when it's your turn, you can't take the heat. Sorry you feel so persecuted here, if you don't like disagreement then don't debate. If you present yourself and your opinions in an extremely arrogant, self-centered, judgmental, and superior manner, don't be the least bit surprised when you get highly negative reactions. I'll leave it at this.

I honestly cannot understand how you can tell me with a straight face that when an armed man kills and unarmed man in a scuffle the armed man should just be let off. rvg's statement that if Martin had killed Zimmerman he should also be let off is even more bizare.

Go back and show me where I said that. I said if the prosecutor reviews the evidence, and determines that there isn't remotely enough evidence to make a solid case which points to the accused being guilty, then there's nothing that can be done. I'll repeat it for good measure, it is better to let a guilty person go free than to take an innocent man's life or freedom.

Zimmerman's version of events is unconvincing, as is his portrait of Martin as a sociopath.

Opinions, and your self-righteous rage and condemning others of us for not seeing things your way is garnering you no support.

I just cannot understand how you people can be so lithe about homocide - as though people's lives only have value so long as they can defend them. It's bizare in the extreme that rvg can just sit there and say that whoever one the fight (by homocide) should have his version of events respected when the other side is unavailable by virtue of his being dead!

More self-righteousness. That this transpired was sad. But calling it homicide is just more of your opinion. If it's self defense, it's not homicide. Perhaps you should wait until the trial is over and all the evidence is presented before making your own judgments, but given your nature that's not how you work. Think it's insulting? Go back and review your statements. Same holds true for all the other wailing teeth-gnashers who have been clamoring for Zimmerman's head.

Nobody has a greater motive to distort the truth than Zimmerman, and therefore his account cannot be reliable.

That's why we have juries, so that one can be judged by one's peers. If it really was self defense, the prosecution is going to have a near impossible task due to lack of evidence and self-incrimination laws. Zimmerman's counsel will guide him appropriately as to what he should or should not say, but telling the truth when he does talk (if at all) shouldn't hurt him.

I've already retracted the "premeditated" point - so I'll just say this. In the US you have "Second Degree" murder and it is my understanding that all that is required is the deliberate act, the traditional "malice of forethought" for that charge to stick.

I'm sure the prosecutor would be glad to hear what else he should be charged with. Perhaps emailing them would be helpful, as I'm sure they would also welcome a non-US citizen providing guidance on how we should govern ourselves or how to enact the proper legislation to bring it in line with your views.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In some cases yes, in others no. You cannot paint with as broad a brush as you do.

Of course I can - the similarities are broad - the differences are in the detail. The Common Law definition of murder across the Anglo-Sphere is "the killing of another with malice of forethought" - where "malice" means a deliberate act. In the US you have statutes on homocide which modify that position, but they follow the same basic defintion.

Never said it wasn't deliberate. We have said we highly doubt it was premeditated.

And I have retracted "premeditated" but "murder" requires the deliberate act - not premeditation.

On this we agree.

OK, so can we agree this is "the killing...forethought" - the issue is motive. Zimmerman does need to provide justification.

People all across the US go armed with concealed carry permits. In the vast, vast majority of instances, one could have a conversation or interact with such a person and never know it. This means nothing.

What's your point? Don't most guns get used on their owners in the US? Just because lots of people do it doesn't make it a good idea.

Absolutely nothing. Your anti-gun bias is really coming out.

I actually quite like guns - I just can't see the point in carrying one. Taking this case as an example, even Zimmerman's testemony implies his weapon escalated the situation and it remains to be seen if Martin's killing was justified.

Again, your opinion.

A weapon with a round chambered is unsafe, yes? The rule is that you don't chamber a round unless you are about to fire, you certainly don't carry an unsafe weapon on your person outside a combat situation.

There's dozens and dozens of scenarios in which all of these could have happened. If you were actually HERE I could take you to my gym, or my friend's qwoon and we could go over these with you with fake weapons and protective fighting gear on. It's not remotely farfetched. Just because YOU don't see it, doesn't mean that it's unlikely or impossible. I also haven't heard anything about what is claimed to have happened, and until I do I reserve judgment.

Dozens and dozens is a bit of a strech, surely?

Zimmerman had to draw the weapon, make ready, remove the safety and fire the weapon whilst simultaneously bringing it into line - all whilst being repeatedly punched in the face. That's according to his own testemony.

You are still demonstrating your complete lack of understanding about humans fighting and combat. It is 100% entirely possible, and given what I've seen getting toward probable, that if Treyvon surprised Zimmerman in any way, it would have put him on the defensive and reeling. Your claim that a smaller person cannot or is highly unlikely to overpower a larger individual is completely baseless. Again, if you were actually here, I and my coaches and friends could definitively demonstrate these principles to you and have you even try them out for yourself, if you were so inclined.

This does not then equate to credible lethal threat. I've taken beatings - I was once headbutted so hard on a public bus I went flying three feet back into my seat and my nose exploded in a spray of blood - but I never felt like someone was going to kill me with his fists. But then, I also didn't have a gun to shoot him with - so that option was not available to me, I just had to take the beating.

[quote]Your words, not mine. I've never said or implied anything like that, quite the opposite in fact if you read back.[quote]

No - that's true, you didn't initially say he deserved to get shot, but others you appear to agree with have and your first response in the thread was "the little thug that got shot."

Thug has all sorts of implications, it's pretty much one of the worst slurs you can put on someone's character short of "rapist" and "baby killer" - it's also and extremely ugly word for this reason.

Lack of understanding again. In survival situations fight or flight kicks in. A "normal" person when confronted with an "unwinnable" situation, such as the other person has a drawn gun, will not tempt fate as it were and would attempt to flee if possible. Hence fight or flight. If he were confronted in such a manner that he did not think flight was possible, then it's the fight reaction, this is possible depending on Zimmerman's actions. The other possibility is that he was a dumb punk or extremely foolish, and thought that he could take a few swings at Zimmerman, beat him up a bit and scare him off. There's another dozen possible combinations or scenarios. Some of them include Zimmerman being the aggressor, others not. Your basic presumption though has been that Zimmerman went at this with 1. a premeditation or mindset that he was going to use lethal force and even 2. he had the intent of causing a physical altercation. We are saying we don't agree with these, especially point 1.

No I'm not. I'm following Zimmerman's testimony - Martin confronted him, he says, and started attacking him. That doesn't ring particularly true - as the investigating officer said at the time. I also never said that Martin could not over power Zimmerman. I simply said that if Martin were scared enough he might attack Zimmerman. Talking about fight or flight, some people have crossed wires, in some cases they Beserk - and do stupiud things. It's not possible to know, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility that Zimmerman presented a sufficient threat to cause a highly irrational action.

Completely, 100%, absolutely, unequivocally different situations that have zero relevance or similarity to each other.

Not 100% - some people do extremely stupid things when threatened. Assaulting machine guns is rarely actually neccessary, after all. I'm not asking to draw some complex parallel here.

Go back and start reading your posts some day. I understand you pretty well. You've actually become a bit of a weather vane for me I've found, with a few exceptions. My views and outlook on life are almost polar opposites from yours. You've been very quick to indicate when you find other's stated views and opinions offensive, and give extremely arrogant and judgmental replies. But when it's your turn, you can't take the heat. Sorry you feel so persecuted here, if you don't like disagreement then don't debate. If you present yourself and your opinions in an extremely arrogant, self-centered, judgmental, and superior manner, don't be the least bit surprised when you get highly negative reactions. I'll leave it at this.

You think I oppose homosexual marriages because I'm a homophobe, you think I'm not only intellectually and emotionally dishonest, but also that I peddle deliberate falsehoods. The most interesting thing is that you do to me what you accuse others of doing to you - not reading your posts critically and respondingt appropriatly.

Oh, and if I'm your weather vane then presumably you believe in Young Earth Creationism, Criminalising Homosexuality and imprisonment without trial?

Or perhaps I am slightly more complex and nuanced than you give me credit for?

Go back and show me where I said that. I said if the prosecutor reviews the evidence, and determines that there isn't remotely enough evidence to make a solid case which points to the accused being guilty, then there's nothing that can be done. I'll repeat it for good measure, it is better to let a guilty person go free than to take an innocent man's life or freedom.

Well, aside from the fact that the investigating officer dissagreed with the proecutor - we dissagree on a point of principle. I believe that when a man dies and his killer can be positively identified there should be a trial by jury - in every case.

Opinions, and your self-righteous rage and condemning others of us for not seeing things your way is garnering you no support.

Your own self-righteous disdain for the victim is not helping you, either.

More self-righteousness. That this transpired was sad. But calling it homicide is just more of your opinion. If it's self defense, it's not homicide. Perhaps you should wait until the trial is over and all the evidence is presented before making your own judgments, but given your nature that's not how you work. Think it's insulting? Go back and review your statements. Same holds true for all the other wailing teeth-gnashers who have been clamoring for Zimmerman's head.

I called it "homocide" not muder. Martin was killed by Zimmerman in a deliberate act - homocide; the Coroner has already recorded a verdict of homocide, so this is not my "opinion" it is an established fact.

As Zimmerman committed the act of homocide his testimony cannot be relied upon. That doesn't mean he is lying, but all things being equal it is more likely.

That's why we have juries, so that one can be judged by one's peers. If it really was self defense, the prosecution is going to have a near impossible task due to lack of evidence and self-incrimination laws. Zimmerman's counsel will guide him appropriately as to what he should or should not say, but telling the truth when he does talk (if at all) shouldn't hurt him.

You assume, again, that he is telling the truth. He may not be. Yes, this is why we have juries - it is alos why we cause witnesses to testify under Oath.

I'm sure the prosecutor would be glad to hear what else he should be charged with. Perhaps emailing them would be helpful, as I'm sure they would also welcome a non-US citizen providing guidance on how we should govern ourselves or how to enact the proper legislation to bring it in line with your views.

You object? He killed someone in a deliberate act - why should he not be charged with murder, and manslaughter?

In a trial it the responsibility of the prosecution to secure a conviction and the defense to prevent it.

[The Stranger]

Alot of things

for someone who reserves judgment this "the little thug" is quite judgmental to say about someone you don't know about a thing that happened when you weren't there...

but that's just my oppinion ofcourse...

[Whacker]

for someone who reserves judgment this "the little thug" is quite judgmental to say about someone you don't know about a thing that happened when you weren't there...

but that's just my oppinion ofcourse...

Head on back to the start of this thread for that part about him being a punk.

[Xiahou]

A weapon with a round chambered is unsafe, yes? The rule is that you don't chamber a round unless you are about to fire, you certainly don't carry an unsafe weapon on your person outside a combat situation.

Actually the Kel Tec 9mm pistol is double-action only and has internal safeties that make it mechanically impossible for the gun to fire without the trigger being pulled. Having a round in the chamber in a gun like that is pretty standard...

[The Stranger]

Head on back to the start of this thread for that part about him being a punk.

Yeah yeah, I'm clearly racist. From what I read the kid was a thug, multiple school suspensions and a bad track record. The shooter claims the kid punched and assaulted him, but this is all yet to be seen. I didn't say the kid deserved to be shot, going to wait and find out what comes out in court and see if I believe it first and it was true self defense. Either way, I'm definitely leaning towards his character was less than stellar and that he was a little thug.

I gotta agree with PJ's post for the most part, I'm utterly sick and tired of the race card being pulled all the damn time. It's got to the point where I develop this almost instinctive immediate counter-reaction and whenever a situation arises and the race card comes out, I start to believe the opposite party in the conflict.

If you mean this, I've read it, and it is hardly rational or reasonable don't you think?

I've got multiple school suspensions, I'm hardly what you call a thug. I don't really get what you mean by track record, but I got quite an awesome time on the 400 meter sprint.

(I don't think it was a rascist murder, yet that some people do clearly influenced your judgment of this case)

[ajaxfetish]

From this non-expert, looking through Wikipedia's explanations of different charges for killing, the boundary between second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter looks rather vague:

Wikipedia: Murder (United States law)

• First degree murder is any murder that is willful and premeditated. Felony murder is typically first degree.[5]
• Second degree murder is a murder that is not premeditated or planned in advance.[6]
• Voluntary manslaughter sometimes called a "Heat of Passion" murder, is any intentional killing that involved no prior intent to kill, and which was committed under such circumstances that would "cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed." Both this and second degree murder are committed on the spot, but the two differ in the magnitude of the circumstances surrounding the crime. For example, a bar fight that results in death would ordinarily constitute second degree murder. If that same bar fight stemmed from a discovery of infidelity, however, it may be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter.[7]
• Involuntary manslaughter stems from a lack of intention to cause death but involving an intentional, or negligent, act leading to death. A drunk driving-related death is typically involuntary manslaughter. Note that the "unintentional" element here refers to the lack of intent to bring about the death. All three crimes above feature an intent to kill, whereas involuntary manslaughter is "unintentional," because the killer did not intend for a death to result from his intentional actions. If there is a presence of intention it relates only to the intent to cause a violent act which brings about the death, but not an intention to bring about the death itself. [8]

But this explanation of Voluntary Manslaughter seems to clarify it quite a bit:

Wikipedia: Voluntary Manslaughter
Voluntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being in which the offender had no prior intent to kill and acted during "the heat of passion," under circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed. In the Uniform Crime Reports prepared by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, it is referred to as non negligent manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter is one of two main types of manslaughter, the other being involuntary manslaughter.
Contents

...

Provocation

Provocation consists of the reasons for which one person kills another. "Adequate" or "reasonable" provocation is what makes the difference between voluntary manslaughter and murder. According to the book Criminal Law Today, “provocation is said to be adequate if it would cause a reasonable person to lose self-control”. [1] For example, if a man were to come home and find his wife in bed with another person and kill both of them in a jealous rage, this might be considered adequate provocation and thus voluntary manslaughter.[citation needed]
State of mind

Imperfect self-defense

In some jurisdictions, malice can also be negated by imperfect self-defense. Self-defense is considered imperfect when the killer acted from his belief in the necessity for self-defense, but that belief was not reasonable under the circumstances. If the belief in self-defense were reasonable, then the killing would be considered justified and not unlawful. Where the belief is unreasonable, the homicide is considered to be voluntary manslaughter.

An example is if a person kills a passer-by he mistakes as a threatening mugger.

So it seems that one critical issue is whether or not Zimmerman was reasonably provoked. If he was violently assaulted by Martin, as he claims, then the killing would qualify only as voluntary manslaughter. If Martin didn't start the altercation, but rather Zimmerman initiated it, or I suppose if the assault was of insufficient intensity to qualify as an adequate provocation, then he'd be guilty of second-degree murder. And if Martin did indeed start the fight, the question is then whether Zimmerman's self-defense was 'perfect,' or whether or not his belief in his need to defend himself thus was reasonable. If it was unreasonable, then he'd be guilty of voluntary manslaughter, but if it was reasonable, his killing of Martin would be lawful.

So for the prosecution, I guess the question is, can they demonstrate that Martin did not start the fight, or that if he did, his assault was not an adequate provocation? If so, the charge should be second-degree. That sounds difficult, though, based on how the circumstances have been related, so they'd probably be a lot safer with a voluntary manslaughter charge. Then they'd only need to prove that Zimmerman's belief in his need for lethal self-defense was not reasonable. Or is that where Florida's implementation of castle law could gum up the works?

Ajax

PS: also, in the midst of a discussion of definitions, this bit made my day:

the viscous dog he bought

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Actually the Kel Tec 9mm pistol is double-action only and has internal safeties that make it mechanically impossible for the gun to fire without the trigger being pulled. Having a round in the chamber in a gun like that is pretty standard...

It's still the wrong thing to do, and this case shows why.

It explains why Zimmerman can claim Martin was a "lethal threat" - he was afraid of being shot with his own gun.

That, to my mind, demonstrates the problem with concealed carry for the purposes of self defence - all the firearm seems to have done is turn a violent altercation into a lethal one.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I've got multiple school suspensions, I'm hardly what you call a thug.

That is just what some punk kid would say. What did you do to get suspended, punk? Did you wear some satanic symbols on your shirt in defiance of the dress code or did you just decide that talking back to the teacher was the way to live your life?

[The Stranger]

That is just what some punk kid would say. What did you do to get suspended, punk? Did you wear some satanic symbols on your shirt in defiance of the dress code or did you just decide that talking back to the teacher was the way to live your life?

No I got suspended for defending my liberty.

[Sir Moody]

PS: also, in the midst of a discussion of definitions, this bit made my day:

yeah my spelling isn't the best...

[Productivity]

Legalities aside, am I the only one who finds it disgusting that a young man can walk to the store, be trailed by someone who then calls emergency services and is recommended to not do anything themselves. This man then takes it upon themselves to not do that and instead confronts (in some undetermined manner) the first person resulting in a confrontation and a shooting.

Regardless of how the actual confrontation played out, unless Martin went up to Zimmerman's car and started attacking Zimmerman or his property, I fail to see how Zimmerman has any moral high ground. He might get off on lack of evidence or because of the way the laws in Florida are structured, but ultimately but for his action to tail and then confront Martin, Martin would be alive today. And at the time of confrontation, Martin had done absolutely nothing wrong.

People need to take a long hard look at this case and ask is this the society they want. Because I sure as hell would hate for it to be my society.

[Lemur]

Regardless of how the actual confrontation played out, unless Martin went up to Zimmerman's car and started attacking Zimmerman or his property, I fail to see how Zimmerman has any moral high ground.

Yes, well, if you think shooting an unarmed man dead is morally questionable this is because you are a race-baiting bad person. Or so I have learned from this thread.

[Sir Moody]

Legalities aside, am I the only one who finds it disgusting that a young man can walk to the store, be trailed by someone who then calls emergency services and is recommended to not do anything themselves. This man then takes it upon themselves to not do that and instead confronts (in some undetermined manner) the first person resulting in a confrontation and a shooting.

Regardless of how the actual confrontation played out, unless Martin went up to Zimmerman's car and started attacking Zimmerman or his property, I fail to see how Zimmerman has any moral high ground. He might get off on lack of evidence or because of the way the laws in Florida are structured, but ultimately but for his action to tail and then confront Martin, Martin would be alive today. And at the time of confrontation, Martin had done absolutely nothing wrong.

People need to take a long hard look at this case and ask is this the society they want. Because I sure as hell would hate for it to be my society.

I agree entirely that Morally what Zimmerman did was VERY wrong - the problem is one of Legality.

He has been charged with Murder which means it does matter how the confrontation played out - its only murder if he started the fight.

[Vladimir]

And it also calls into question the otherwise good "stand your ground" law, which this is on the edge of.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's not that easy. Say you've got a gun, and you get attacked by someone who's unarmed. In the course of this attack, you realize you are not going to win this fight--should you accept an ass-beating and possibly worse? Or should you shoot the bastard?

The bias is far too strong in this thread, from everyone.

1. He's unarmed, he's highly unlikely to kill you with his bare hands, so you can't reasonably claim "self defence" for killing him.

2. Guns are made for killing people, at close range especially you can't really claim to be "shooting to wound" if he then dies.

3. If you have a gun and you are being beaten up the greatest threat, as in Zimmerman's case, is that your assailant uses your gun against you before you use it against him.

In summary: Guns are bad things to have on your person unless you plan on killing someone.

[Greyblades]

1. He's unarmed, he's highly unlikely to kill you with his bare hands, so you can't reasonably claim "self defence" for killing him.

Ah yes, this argument, the same one I encountered when I considered knives, the fight would get lethal if you used a weapon so the smart thing it to take your beating and hope that you dont get irreversably maimed before you tell on him later.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ah yes, this argument, the same one I encountered when I considered knives, the fight would get lethal if you used a weapon so the smart thing it to take your beating and hope that you dont get irreversably maimed before you tell on him later.

More than that, drawing a knife or a gun is dumb because then you either have to use it before the guy can hit you or pull his own weapons. Zimmerman's claim on lethal threat is more understandable when you realise his piece was a nasty little pocket weapon wihtout a safety catch he kept loaded.

[Major Robert Dump]

Fact: No one ever suffers permanent damage from getting hit with just fists and feet.

Concealed weapons permits are inherently racist because most minorities cannot afford to legally carry a gun, or an ID, for that matter.

I saw a picture of Treyvon the other day, he was only 3 years old. I cannot believe Zimmerman shot a 3 year old. Zimmerman is a white devil.

[Greyblades]

Fact: No one ever suffers permanent damage from getting hit with just fists and feet.

You obviously havent heard of the curb stomp, concussion related brain damage, realized that most thugs dont restrict themselves to fists and feet and havent read shamo.