Trayvon Martin George Zimmerman Discussion Thread...

[DrGo0]

you're still approaching this from the perspective that since he had a gun at all, there's literally no other intent in his mind than to hunt down Trayvon and shoot him. even if this WAS the case --fuck it, maybe it was-- that's not proven merely by the fact that he had a gun..

It doesn't matter if killing Martin is the only thing on his mind, or the 100th thing on his mind. What matters is at one point between him following TM and deliberately pulling out his gun and shooting him he knew that actions could/should lead to his death. It doesn't really matter if he thought he was protecting the neighborhood, or at one point trying to question him. All that really matters in the charge is that at one point in the WHOLE CONFRONTATION Zimmerman knew that pointing and shooting a gun at Trayvon could kill him...

That is what second degree murder is.

 

[janklow]

It doesn't matter if killing Martin is the only thing on his mind, or the 100th thing on his mind. What matters is at one point between him following TM and deliberately pulling out his gun and shooting him he knew that actions could/should lead to his death. It doesn't really matter if he thought he was protecting the neighborhood, or at one point trying to question him. All that really matters in the charge is that at one point in the WHOLE CONFRONTATION Zimmerman knew that pointing and shooting a gun at Trayvon could kill him...

That is what second degree murder is.

second degree murder is about intent, not "oh, A GUN was involved." the exact same chain of actions could happen with a knife, or a bat, or anything else he picked up and took with him. he could have followed him and deliberately hit him with a bat knowing this could lead to Trayvon's death. which is why your earlier claim of "manslaughter is based on what the object is primarily used for" is something bogus that you mysteriously haven't gone back to elaborate on for either i or Plutarch.

and you know, it really DOES matter exactly what happened with the confrontation when you're comparing murder versus manslaughter.

but that's all been covered, since what i am SPECIFICALLY talking about is why you have such an emotional problem with guns that you think they affect the law in ways they don't. really, dude, i am trying to lay out an argument here just to get a response of "but...but...but...A GUN was involved." if Zimmerman is not found guilty, are you going to declare it makes no sense because no matter what the jury believes, A GUN was involved?

 

[DrGo0]

It doesn't matter if killing Martin is the only thing on his mind, or the 100th thing on his mind. What matters is at one point between him following TM and deliberately pulling out his gun and shooting him he knew that actions could/should lead to his death. It doesn't really matter if he thought he was protecting the neighborhood, or at one point trying to question him. All that really matters in the charge is that at one point in the WHOLE CONFRONTATION Zimmerman knew that pointing and shooting a gun at Trayvon could kill him...

That is what second degree murder is.

second degree murder is about intent, not "oh, A GUN was involved." the exact same chain of actions could happen with a knife, or a bat, or anything else he picked up and took with him. he could have followed him and deliberately hit him with a bat knowing this could lead to Trayvon's death.

A bat could be murder but there is more space in proving that Zimmerman knew in swinging the bat that Trayvon was probably going to die. Maybe he was trying to hurt him. Maybe he was trying to scare him. How many times did he swing it? Did Trayvon react to any of the blows? How many times do normal people get hit with bats before dying? Chances are it would bring a manslaughter, just because it's harder to prove.

Since Zimmerman knows guns kill and he consciously shot a gun that he brought. Proves at one point he was trying to kill Trayvon.

the gun didn't go off on it's own. He wasn't trying to pistol whip him. He was deliberately shooting him.

If Zimmerman is proven not guilty, it's not because he didn't mean to shoot TM. It's because there is enough evidence that he shot him in self defense.

If it's not self defense it's murder plain and simple...

 

[janklow]

Maybe he was trying to hurt him. Maybe he was trying to scare him. How many times did he swing it?

you can say the exact same thing about carrying a gun. which is exactly the point: LEGALLY carrying a gun does not mean you have the intent to commit second degree murder.

"knows guns kill and he consciously shot a gun that he brought." dude, just admit you're afraid of GUNS and this is the basis for your argument. because it still comes down to you saying having a gun at all is WORSE than walking out the door with a bat for the express purpose of beating someone with it. let me say it again: you're saying it's worse to have a gun at all than to INTENTIONALLY chase down someone with a bat. might need to look up that "intent" thing again.

Proves at one point he was trying to kill Trayvon.

actually, it absolutely does not. you might ALSO need to want to look into the whole concept of concealed carry.

the gun didn't go off on it's own. He wasn't trying to pistol whip him. He was deliberately shooting him.

"the bat didn't hit him on its own. he wasn't trying to keep him away with the bat. he was deliberately beating him with it." what's the difference?

If Zimmerman is proven not guilty, it's not because he didn't mean to shoot TM. It's because there is enough evidence that he shot him in self defense. If it's not self defense it's murder plain and simple...

says the guy who has been arguing HAVING THE GUN AT ALL made it murder. which is it?

 

[DrGo0]

"the bat didn't hit him on its own. he wasn't trying to keep him away with the bat. he was deliberately beating him with it." what's the difference?

Prove that he knew that when he hit him he was going to die vs just was trying to hurt him? It's easier to prove intent by the tools used.

A gun is a deadly weapon it can be proven he chose to kill him at one point, because he consciously chose to use it.

just like if you use a deep fryer on chicken, and you end up with fried chicken it's easier to prove you intended to make fried chicken, than if you used lets say a Gorge Forman Grill.

]says the guy who has been arguing HAVING THE GUN AT ALL made it murder. which is it?

I said that since he used a gun he should be CHARGED with murder 2. Not that he is guilty of murder....

 

[janklow]

Prove that he knew that when he hit him he was going to die vs just was trying to hurt him? It's easier to prove intent by the tools used.

amazingly enough, proving intent involves the forensics, eyewitness testimony, etc. you know, the same stuff that's coming up in the actual trial we're talking about?

there's a reason we're talking about things like "why did Zimmerman choose to follow Trayvon." because intent is more complicated than "oh no, someone carried a gun." at some point it's time for you to familiarize yourself with the actual concept of concealed carry or at least start admitting that you're so afraid of guns you cannot discuss them rationally.

A gun is a deadly weapon it can be proven he chose to kill him at one point, because he consciously chose to use it.

no, he carried it with him, in compliance with the law. at some point, it was used. THESE are actual statements that shouldn't be disputed. what exactly happened and why is a matter of some contention, which is why your "OMG A GUN" notion is so flawed.

just like if you use a deep fryer on chicken, and you end up with fried chicken it's easier to prove you intended to make fried chicken, than if you used lets say a Gorge Forman Grill.

I said that since he used a gun he should be CHARGED with murder 2. Not that he is guilty of murder....

false. let me quote you:

"he leaves his car with a gun. The kid runs away, and he chases him. At the point where Zimmerman chases a person while armed could possibly be the moment he has a "deprived mind.""

your argument was Zimmerman having the gun at all proven some level of depravity that makes it murder. let's not lose track of your own ridiculous notions.

and he WAS charged with murder, that's not really being disputed. but charging and proving are different things. and charging him with murder is about a little more than "well, he had a gun."

 

[Mister B.]

Which is all the more reason this should be 1st degree MANSLAUGHTER, not 2nd (or even 3rd) degree MURDER.

Even Criminally Negligent Homicide could be used here, but that'd be a slap on the wrist for him and only like 2 years, tops.

 

[DrGo0]

I said that since he used a gun he should be CHARGED with murder 2. Not that he is guilty of murder....

false. let me quote you:

"he leaves his car with a gun. The kid runs away, and he chases him. At the point where Zimmerman chases a person while armed could possibly be the moment he has a "deprived mind.""

your argument was Zimmerman having the gun at all proven some level of depravity that makes it murder. let's not lose track of your own ridiculous notions.

Notice how I said "could possibly be." As in "there's a chance." Having/using the gun in that situation COULD prove something. A "chance" does not prove innocence or guilt...

It was part of the prosecution's line of argument in the case... The prosecution talked about how "they thought he chased him," and how his gun was loaded and "had one in the chamber."

That's important because if they can prove he followed Trayvon illegally/negligently and he knowingly chose to use deadly force in the situation, he should be found guilty of 2nd degree murder, not manslaughter...

A depraved mind does not mean you necessarily "hate" someone or you are out to get them. It means that you know at some time your actions will kill someone, and you do it anyway.

 

[Squidward Tentacles]

so looks like he was found not guilty.

 

[Swiffness!]

Kill them all. Even Janklow.

 

[KNiGHTS]

And on this day zero fucks were given. Two weeks from now, like Oscar Grant, Sean Bell, and a slew of other murdered blacks, Trayvon Martin will be a distant memory for all but his friends and family. Somewhere an ignorant section of blacks will continue to think race relations in this country are fine, and all the outraged pseudo-Black Panthers who made Facebook posts, memes, and statuses will go back to instagram'ing pictures of dinner, stalking exes, and roasting LeBron's hairline.

This is America. We're black. Animal welfare ranks higher than we do. It's not fair, right, or just. It's just the truth.

 

[dwade206]

So I guess you can kill unarmed black males and get acquitted. This is fucking sad. But, even being acquitted, dude has it coming to him. Peace ya'll.

 

[janklow]

Notice how I said "could possibly be." As in "there's a chance." Having/using the gun in that situation COULD prove something. A "chance" does not prove innocence or guilt...

so now we're backtracking on this?

if the prosecution's whole argument was "he was legally carrying a gun with a round in the chamber" (which, oddly enough, is how many, many people legally carry), then their argument sucked. i know it wasn't the sum total of their case, though.

the real thing is, if he followed Trayvon negligently (not really sure how he'd follow him illegally), THAT shows more than the fact that he had the gun. THAT is my point. i think from the jump my explanation was Zimmerman's not blameless in this situation.

A depraved mind does not mean you necessarily "hate" someone or you are out to get them. It means that you know at some time your actions will kill someone, and you do it anyway.

which is why i said if you think legally carrying a gun at all constitutes a depraved mind, you should look into the concept of concealed carry.

Kill them all. Even Janklow.

well, that seems unjustified. even though i think this is absolutely the reverse of the "black people too happy, white people too mad" bit.

anyway, we should probably break out a new topic since the verdict has happened.