Correct – and not merely “implies;” the charges require proof of the “depraved mind.” But remember that “depraved mind” is a term of legal art.
(Quoting Fla. Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal) 7.4.)
Ellison v State gives a pretty good laundry list of different circumstances which support the finding of ill will, hatred, spite, or evil intent:
So presumably the prosecution feels that the totality of the circumstances can be shown to be close to some of the ones above, in which second degree murder was upheld.
Again, his nose was never diagnosed as broken. Repeatedly stating he had a broken nose doesn’t make it so.
Do you think the only way one can sustain a bloody head is by being attacked unprovoked? Is it possible, in your world, to ever become injured in the process of attacking someone else?
What evidence is there that Zimmerman screamed, besides his mere say so? What witnesses attributed that voice to him? What experts have listened to that tape and have either said that was his voice or ruled out Martin’s?
No witness saw the fight in its entirety, so I’m not sure why you think they provide any evidence that Martin deserved to be shot.
Plus, it has been explained to you in the past that people who are winning a fight do not usually scream for help. The fact that Martin was winning the fight is demonstrated by the physical evidence of the injuries to Zimmerman and lack of injury (apart from the mark on his knuckle) to Martin.
betenoire39 - are you going to produce cites for your claims, as you said you would?
It’s this sort of fallacious reasoning that really ticks me off, yet these people are convinced their reasoning is sound ().
Is it really necessary to offer a motive for why some psycho decides to push someone in front of a moving train or why someone decided to rape a woman?
Are we to forget the ACTION itself?
It’s like they’re saying that if I am unable to come up with a REASON WHY the defendant committed the act, he must be innocent (WTF???).
This is simply mind-boggling.
I am really getting lost.
you in the face, I am with you. But I really think this has to do with thinking styles…linear thinking. Again this is the template:
Zimmerman was hurt, therefore Martin did x, y and z (also WHEN Zimmerman said he did).
No deviation from this. None (even though they THEMSELVES can’t prove this definitively).
If you have no evidence refuting this, then it’s true (beautiful reasoning lol).
Even when you provide a PLAUSIBLE counter, you’re a nut or they find the most asinine excuse to dismiss it (like the comment I wrote about the blood).
A few posters are committing the most egregious logical fallacies, get called out on it, and just throw out more red herrings rather than take another look at their arguments.
Shodan, I am looking through the police interviews to give an exact location where he said he was either hit by concrete or a SIGN. Yes, Zimmerman said that. It is over an hour long.
I am also combing through some medical opinions (of medical professionals) about what they thought about the head injury.
Plus, it has been explained to you in the past that people who are winning a fight do not usually scream for help. The fact that Martin was winning the fight…
[/quote]
You have a different definition for “winning” than I do. Only one person walked away from that fight, and it wasn’t Martin.
“Jon” has since recounted his initial claims about what he saw that night. He admits he doesn’t know for sure who was yelling for help. So that’s a bust for your side.
As for the broken nose, show me Zimmerman’s medical report that shows he was actually diagnosed with such. A CBS article is nice and all, but the media is notorious for misrepresenting medical information. You need to go to the source document to prove that a qualified medical professional definitively diagnosed him with a broken nose.
You won’t find it because Zimmerman conveniently neglected to follow up with a specialist. He didn’t even go to the ER.
I actually wanted to laugh, but given the gravity and sadness, I didn’t.
If the body wasn’t where it was, Zimmerman had the appropriate injuries, and Martin had the physical evidence ON him (blood for instance) I just may have believed him.
I’ll bring this up again, but the things that could have definitively swung my opinion in Zimmerman’s favor seem to be missing. How convenient…
The very things that could have VERIFIED DEFINITIVELY Zimmerman’s story seem to be clouded in “I don’t remember” or “the doctor was too expensive” or multiple stories of BS.
So those pictures of someone with a bloody nose, two black eyes, and lacerations to the front and back of his head, who are they? They 're claimed to be Zimmerman, and they look an awful lot like him. I’ll assume you honestly forgot about them, because the other option is that you’re lying or delusional.
Given that you now remember those pictures, which agree with the police and medical reports of his injuries, why are you claiming they weren’t given to him by the person who was seen beating him?
Please keep up. You said there is photographic evidence of bruising. But there isn’t. Find me one picture of Zimmerman that clearly shows him with black eyes. You will not find it because none exist.
To see a close-up shot of him the day after the shooting, click this link:
If you were actually going to read “John’s” statement for content, you would notice that he says exactly what every rational person knew already - that people who are winning a fight do not generally scream for help.
You don’t believe the media, you don’t believe court records, you won’t believe medical records either. There it is, it’s been proven, if you want to tell yourself fairy tales, worse luck for you.
He said there was PICTURE EVIDENCE of BRUISING. You disproved him, quite clearly.
He then forgets that his argument was about picture evidence of bruising and changes the subject, asking you about a bloody nose, two black eyes, and lacerations .
Red herring here, strawman there combined with a false dilemma (or two or three).
And by the way, if you are going to produce a cite of Zimmerman claiming he hit his head on a sign, that is not what you claimed you would produce. If you are not going to believe anything just because Zimmerman said so, you are not going to assert anything just because Zimmerman said so.
I believe Martin punched Zimmerman in the face, not simply because Zimmerman said so, but because there is physical evidence and independent corroboration that he did so.
You have claimed that Zimmerman hit his head on a dog sign, or on a sprinkler box. Show me the DNA on the dog sign, or the box, since you are so easily convinced that something didn’t happen because of the absence of DNA.
You have suggested that Zimmerman threw Martin to the ground. Please produce evidence that this is what happened.
You have suggested that Zimmerman did not act alone. Please produce one single, solitary scrap of evidence that this is the case. DNA from someone else. A witness who saw someone else. A plausible explanation as to how someone could make a clean getaway during the two minutes or so from the end of the phone call to the time the police arrived at the scene. What did this mysterious someone do - beam himself back up to the Mother Ship?
And of course, if you can’t come up with any positive evidence in favor of your theories, an explanation would be useful as to why you disbelieve things that have evidence in their favor, and accept things that have none.
Well, now, here I have to point out that a black eye is, in fact, a bruise. A bruise is simply a hematoma caused by internal bleeding into interstitial tissue. A black eye is a bruise.
No, although there is at least some legal significance to Martin being on top of Zimmerman.
At trial, evidence is relevant if it has some tendency to assist the finder of fact – the jury – to determine an issue of fact that is in dispute.
In this trial, we can say with some confidence that one issue of ultimate fact to be determined by the jury is whether or not Zimmerman was engaged in self-defense.
If the jury believes that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, it makes it more likely – though by no means a certainty – that the jury would find that Zimmerman was engaging in self-defense.
That, and the lacerations on the back of Zimmerman’s head, are evidence that Zimmerman’s account, where he says Martin was on top of him bashing his head on the ground, is true.
).