Non-emergency.
An element of a crime is a discrete component of a crime, component which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict an accused.
The elements of every crime are defined by statute and case law. In this case, assuming that Zimmerman advances self-defense, here are the elements of second-degree murder:
-
Treyvon Martin was a human being.
-
Treyvon Martin is dead.
-
The death was caused by the criminal act of George Zimmerman.
-
The act which caused Treyvon Martin’s death was motivated by hatred, spite, malice, or ill-will.
-
George Zimmerman did not reasonably believe that his use of deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.
6.The killing happened in Seminole County in the State of Florida.
Good…at about the 13:00 mark, they start talking about Zimmerman’s movements.
Everyone’s so concerned about Martin’s movements, but no one wants to talk about what Zimmerman was doing during the same time frame.
I love the “30 feet in 84 seconds” comment.
Thank you Bricker.
Now hmarvin, I wrote
"Looks like do we agree on something.
But I will change one word here:
No single piece of evidence exonerates Zimmerman. It is the combined group of evidence that is inconsistent with his account and there is a fair amount of it and it interconnects. I think I can speak for others on this point and it is a very important point."
Your response was: “Every element of the Prosecutor’s case has to be proven, or none of it is proven.”
Now, my response is this (with Bricker’s teaching):
The prosecution may not have to prove every little iota…just as long as they present a solid argument to the jury–THEY DON’T HAVE TO BE PERFECT–the elements can still be met.
Bricker, can you do me a favor: Can you define “ill will”?
In the meantime, can you also put up the elements for manslaughter?
Again, speculation here (in the speculation thread), but as I listen to Zimmerman again, I think it is becoming clearer to me that Martin was hiding and that Zimmerman ran past him, initially–completely missing Martin.
He continued looking for Martin. Martin thought he ditched Zimmerman and thought the coast was clear. Either that or Zimmerman spotted Martin on his way back to his vehicle. That’s when the party started.
Zimmerman keeps on talking about Martin coming from behind the bushes…makes sense now—that’s where he was hiding.
I think all the prosecution needed to unlock the cell-phone was to send a court order to t-mobile. They probably didn’t try too hard since any evidence on the phone would probably be helpful to the defense. Apparently O’Mara thinks the same thing.
We buy the doubling back because there was a significant gap in time that allowed for this to happen and Martin gives his location. He has to be somewhere that isn’t out in the open or both he and Zimmerman would see each other.
Now he could have hidden somewhere between where he ran from and his destination but it doesn’t change the narrative. All Zimmerman states is that he comes from a diagonal from the direction of Martin’s house. He doesn’t know if he walked along the perimeter of the back of the houses or from bushes along the perimeter of the houses.
We will never know Martin’s exact launch point but we do know where the fight started and it’s where Zimmerman was originally walking.
BDLR, at a hearing, claimed that Zimmeerman ignored the dispatcher and continued to chase after Martin and essentially ran him down. If that’s their theory, your theory won’t make the trial, though it does appear the more reasonable,.
Has anyone here wondered why Trayvon wouldn’t have taken photos of that evening on his cellphone, and sent it to DeeDee?
too dark unless he has a state of the art phone camera and even then I doubt it.
Indeed–like behind the bushes. Zimmerman states him coming from behind the bushes.
Now, I am getting complete clarity–dimmy, thanks for the link: it crystallized it. Sometimes I need to hear things again for it to sink in.
I am convinced Martin was in the very same bushes Zimmerman said he came from. He was there all along–screw that ‘doubling back’ bullshit. The only one who ‘doubled back’ was Zimmerman. That’s what he was doing in the time after he exited the vehicle. Martin was probably stationary the entire time-- or most of it. this is captured on the phone call to DeeDee.
You’re right Magiver, it still doesn’t change the narrative: Zimmerman still hunted him down.
Zimmerman had to make up that shit about the doubling back and the flashlight nonsense–to make him less culpable. But most of his story is correct–except for the things which would nail him, obviously, LOL.
Serino made a great point–you chased someone, yet didn’t want to go back the same route you took without a flashlight? Lord have mercy.
And again, **Magiver **and company–“NEAR” can mean a lot of things. if I am a 10 minute drive away from my house, I am “near” it–now, the distance is in MILES, but i still consider myself “near”. Same thing for a 10 minute walk.
I am trying to be civil here, but please this “near” business is getting somewhat tiring.
Thank you** hmarvin-**-thank you for the “reasonable” comment.
But keep in mind that what I said doesn’t contradict their theory. As a matter of fact, they would be implying this. There are only 3 options here (more or less):
1)A stationary/somewhat moving Zimmerman, with Martin closing the distance.
2)A stationary/somewhat moving Martin, with Zimmerman closing the distance.
3)A moving Martin and a moving Zimmerman–with both of them closing the distance (they confronted each other).
The prosecution claims #2. As do I.
Many here (that I vehemently disagree with) claim #1.
It can’t be anything but #2.
Trust me, I have examined #1. I have genuinely thought about it, surprisingly–so no, I am not one-sided. My knowledge of basic arithmetic and human running ability tells me that 1 is HIGHLY unlikely–I would go so far as to say impossible. Usain Bolt probably couldn’t make the time Martin supposedly made.
Also, people keep on talking about a supposed 2 minute gap, yet they give no explanation of what Zimmerman was doing during that time. If they want to speculate about Martin during this supposed time frame, you also have to explain Zimmerman’s movements. Even Serino talks about this and why Zimmerman doesn’t make it back to his car. Of course, Zimmerman doesn’t remember–not surprised, obviously.
He can’t say anything that would incriminate himself, so no, I don’t blame him.
3 is ruled out because both of them stated they “lost each other”. But then again, maybe Martin tried a different path to throw Zimmerman off–THEN HID, and bumped into him. That is a possible scenario, but that still fits with #2.
So Zimmerman caught up with Martin–not the other way around, and again, the party started.
Martin at this point, felt he had to defend himself–and I don’t blame him. He ran away and now this guy is right there. Martin was scared shitless.
Martin made his last stand, and unfortunately, he was not successful.
Only by example.
By this I mean that there’s no definition laid out in the case law or the statute – that phrase IS the definition of “depraved mind.”
But here are some examples of the kinds of actions necessary to reach that state of mind, taken from a laundry list in Ellison v. State:
Coming soon.
Zimmerman isn’t claiming he doubled back. In the video he doesn’t know where specifically Martin was. There is no way he can know this. If he doesn’t see him in the open then it’s a logical conjecture on his part. It doesn’t alter his account of what happened or the idea that Martin approaches him. If Zimmerman is on the sidewalk in the open and the fight starts there then Martin has to come to him.
Yes, this near stuff is getting tiring and it’s because of you. Dee Dee didn’t say “near”. She said “next to” and it was stated as a reason why Martin didn’t have to run. We’ve been over this a dozen times. Please stop posting this argument.
- If there is no way he can know this, why state it? (I don’t know–to possibly cover his ass, perhaps :rolleyes:)
Logical conjecture???
Oh..so it’s the IDEA that matters. I get it.
-
Since you mentioned logic in your response, care to apply the contrapositive to your if/then statement? Tell me what you come up with.
-
Ok then. I am not going to argue this (even though people have used “near”:dubious:–no argument).
Is it possible that this could still be true if Martin hid close to the “T”? Is it possible Martin never left that general vicinity? Again, is it possible that “next to” was not meant to be taken LITERALLY (WHICH IS MY POINT)?
Thank you. The Hooker v. State seems very interesting–very.
Zimmerman was on a “mission” too. I wonder if the prosecution is using this case for material.
Now, Bricker, since you’ve given me the elements for second degree, what makes you believe that the prosecution (based on current evidence) cannot get a conviction? This is for second-degree, now.
-
Treyvon Martin was a human being.
-
Treyvon Martin is dead.
-
The death was caused by the criminal act of George Zimmerman.
-
The act which caused Treyvon Martin’s death was motivated by hatred, spite, malice, or ill-will.
-
George Zimmerman did not reasonably believe that his use of deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.
6.The killing happened in Seminole County in the State of Florida.
Which elements would they have difficulty in fulfilling? And WHY?
Educate me.
(I personally think they can meet these…due to Zimmerman’s trap not being able to stay shut–again, I would be happy with manslaughter, but give me YOUR reasoning).
Yes, if you can’t see someone in an open area and they suddenly appear then they have magic powers or they came from an area that is not open and easy to see.
Both Zimmerman and Martin state they’ve lost sight of each other. Zimmerman is out in the open and still on the sidewalk he started from. Martin is not. The fight starts in the area Zimmerman is at. How does he get there?
you ignore the reason it was said in the first place. Dee Dee wanted him to run home. his answer: He said he ain’t gonna run. 'Cause he said he is right by his father’s house.
“right by” his father’s house is used as the reason for not running. He’s there. She then goes on to say:“And then in a couple minutes he said the man is following him again”.
You want to alter the meaning of a word to fit your narrative. I’m using the word as it is intended to be used without interpretation and it’s meaning is reinforced because it’s used to explain WHY he’s not running to his father’s house.
So Martin has gone from wherever he was (out of sight) to where Zimmerman was. How does Martin get to the top of the T?
Well, we did this months ago, with the same Wiki quote…
Yes, if it’s only evidence that is currently in the public domain.
Which part do you think needs “excusing”?
This is all starting to make sense…
Zimmerman’s early media blitz was part of his legal defense–even though it might not have looked like it.
It’s the 4th element that he’s really concerned with–the ill-will part.
That’s why they had that fool Joe Oliver on to try to “prove” Zimmerman wasn’t racist. That’s why certain media outlets tried to stress his “mentoring” of black kids and him standing up for a black police brutality victim.
That’s why early on they focused on the screaming and trying to disprove it being Martin’s voice–if Martin was the one screaming (which I believe he was), then that would almost certainly establish the 4th element.
This Zimmerman is more cunning than I thought he was–all of this shit was calculated from the get-go.
After all–if you believe that mentoring bullshit and Oliver and the screaming nonsense. how could you establish that 4th element?
What the prosecution has to do is definitively establish the screaming was Martin’s–especially the “I’m begging you” part (heart wrenching). That should nail him.
In Hooker, the evidence at trial showed Hooker gone to the area with the avowed purpose of looking for Mexicans to run out of town. In other words, there was explicit testimony at trial that the accused was specifically targeting Mexicans and trying to force them to leave town.
I don’t believe there’s any similar evidence with respect to Zimmerman.
They might have difficulty here, but they can do it: that is, there is evidence, if believed by the jury, that would prove this element beyond a reasonable doubt.
Here’s their problem. Of the evidence in the public sphere, there is none that a jury could rely upon to meet this element.
Why? Look again at the examples I gave. In each case, there was more than just carelessness or negligence – there was something in each case that showed a meanness, a spiteful, ill-will kind of action. There’s no such evidence here. The jury cannot infer it --they have to have specific evidence of it.
In the Hooker case, for example, the jury heard testimony that specifically said Hooker was trying to run Mexicans out of town.
That’s the kind of evidence that’s needed to sustain second-degree murder.
Here again, they might have difficulty, but a jury could hear the available evidence and find this element met.