# Why hasn't the Neighborhood Watch shooter been arrested? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [March 12, 2012, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504 "2012-03-12T00:53:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 89
**Author:** ![Carmady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f04885/32.png) [@Carmady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carmady)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2012, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1761 "2012-03-25T12:59:50Z")
**Stoid** is right that even if Martin did throw the first punch, Zimmerman could still be considered the aggressor. The law says Zimmerman is the aggressor if he: “Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself”. Using racial slurs or threats while armed and following someone on a dark street would probably qualify. Other less extreme actions might also qualify, as the wording is somewhat vague. OK, so let’s say we can establish that Zimmerman is the aggressor according to the law. Then in order to shoot it must be true that he: “reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant” I think it could be convincingly argued that he did not have this belief **reasonably**. We know for a fact that he thought he was up against an armed criminal, because he said so. But that belief was entirely unreasonable. A reasonable person, up against not an armed criminal but a kid going home with skittles, would probably not find it necessary to use deadly force even if they were punched during a fight. Zimmerman could have covered his face with his arms and taken a defensive posture when the fight started to go south for him. But Zimmerman thought (unreasonably) that he was fighting an armed criminal. If he had taken a defensive posture he thought he could be shot. But he can’t use that, in particular, as a defense. Because it was not a reasonable belief. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2012, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1762 "2012-03-25T13:03:02Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Yes, he should, because he engaged in activities which by their very nature could and did lead to the death of an innocent human being, so he should be convicted of second degree murder. That is not the correct description of what he did ( as far as I am aware) and that is not the correct description of second degree murder. I know you disagree. I am only curious about one thing, Stoid. The last time you and I engaged in a lengthy discussion of a legal issue, it was one you had studied extensively, and had a great stake in. Again in that discussion, we disagreed. And ultimately, the court decision in that issue went against your analysis. Did that event cause you in any way to say to yourself anything like, “Gosh, I was convinced I was right, but I was wrong. Maybe I am not as good a judge of my own legal analysis skills as I thought I was.” Because what I picture you as doing in that case, and this one, is saying to yourself, “I know I’m right, and no outcome will convince me otherwise.” I believe that you tell yourself you’re open to persuasion, but that the persuasion would have to logically change your mind; the mere fact that the actual court case doesn’t go your way means zero. Is that at all accurate? You don’t even have to paint him as having an intention to murder anyone or shoot anyone to see his culpability. The idea of reckless disregard for human life can often come down to “being egregiously stupid”, not nefarious. And that’s what I think Zimmerman is guilty of. Egregious stupidity, foolishly disregarding the HUGE potential for creating exactly the situation he went on to create, with the horrible results of someone dying. Exactly what second degree murder is designed to deal with. You don’t get a pass for being THAT fucking stupid, you need to take responsiblity for being THAT fucking stupid and reckless and foolish and dangerous. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2012, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1763 "2012-03-25T13:06:47Z")
> [@grude](#): > > So lets change something up, and see how it seems. > > So I’m a man driving around my neighborhood at night, its dark and pretty lonely. > > When I see a woman walking, I don’t instantly recognize her and being a gender equality kind of dude I decide she could be up to no good, a burgler, etc. > > I start following her in my car, I call 911 to report her as suspicious and get frustrated that a police cruiser isn’t seconds away and that she will be gone by the time anyone gets there. So I take my gun and start chasing her on foot, she starts running. Eventually I catch up to her and as I’m walking up to her yelling at her to explain herself she makes threatening movements and punches me and attacks me, well I’m not going to take any risks with my life so I pull out my gun and shoot her dead. She should have controlled her silly imagination and just calmly answered the questions of the guy chasing her down on a dark street. > > How does that make you feel? Do you care that it is legal or do you feel I should be “blamed”? Does it feel just and right? Chasing, huh? You understand that this description of Zimmerman’s behavior is not accepted by everyone? Why is the man in your hypothetical CHASING the woman, when it’s not established that Zimmerman was chasing Martin? Zimmerman was following Martin, yes. I don’t know anything about chasing. Do you? Or did you jut slip that in to strengthen your argument? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2012, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1764 "2012-03-25T13:09:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, Zimmerman is obviously the proximate cause of Martin’s death. > > What I have been discussing is whether that act imputed criminal liability to Zimmerman, such that he should be arrested, tried, and convicted. No. What we have been doing is gasping in horror at the lack of humanity in some people who want to reduce this to an arcane misapplication of a moronic law, so that a paranoid gun nut who killed a kid gets away with doing so. > [@](#): > > If you simply want to say that Zimmerman should have minded his own damn business and because he did not, a boy is tragically dead, I agree. But it’s more than just not minding his own business. This is a guy who made it his business to go hunting for black kids, and when his business paid off, people like you can sit back and say "Well, we don’t _really_ know what happened before he shot the kid. As I keep saying, the rest of us do. Gun advocates would have been smart to distance themselves from this one from the start, politically speaking. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2012, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1765 "2012-03-25T13:36:31Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > No. What we have been doing is gasping in horror at the lack of humanity in some people who want to reduce this to an arcane misapplication of a moronic law, so that a paranoid gun nut who killed a kid gets away with doing so. What kind of government should we have? Specifically, do you believe our government should have the power to say, “We screwed up this law. This is a moronic law. We’re repealing it immediately, and you’re under arrest anyway, because you’re a paranoid gun nut who killed a kid, and that should have been illegal, even though it wasn’t, in this case.” (Of course, my question assume the truth of Zimmerman’s self defense claim, because if his claim is not true, I have no problem with his arrest. But it sounds to me as though you urge his arrest regardless of the truth of his claim. Do you?) ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2012, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1766 "2012-03-25T14:43:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What kind of government should we have? > > Specifically, do you believe our government should have the power to say, “We screwed up this law. This is a moronic law. We’re repealing it immediately, and you’re under arrest anyway, because you’re a paranoid gun nut who killed a kid, and that should have been illegal, even though it wasn’t, in this case.” This is a specious argument, since it pretends that the law has anything to do with Zimmerman. Those who wrote it are clearly saying it doesn’t apply. I think what you’ll see is that the proportion of people trying to find legal protection for anything that Zimmerman did will be rapidly diminishing, since what he did is obvious to everyone. > [@](#): > > (Of course, my question assume the truth of Zimmerman’s self defense claim, because if his claim is not true, I have no problem with his arrest. But it sounds to me as though you urge his arrest regardless of the truth of his claim. Do you?) Res ipsa loquitur. The direction in which the snowflakes flew don’t matter to me after he set the avalanche in progress. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2012, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1767 "2012-03-25T15:16:45Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > This is a specious argument, since it pretends that the law has anything to do with Zimmerman. Those who wrote it are clearly saying it doesn’t apply. I think what you’ll see is that the proportion of people trying to find legal protection for anything that Zimmerman did will be rapidly diminishing, since what he did is obvious to everyone.Res ipsa loquitur. The direction in which the snowflakes flew don’t matter to me after he set the avalanche in progress. So if Martin shot Zimmerman dead right as that 911 call ended, then what? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2012, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1768 "2012-03-25T15:26:45Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > This is a specious argument, since it pretends that the law has anything to do with Zimmerman. Those who wrote it are clearly saying it doesn’t apply. I’m not talking about the SYG law, but “the law,” the entire extant body of criminal code. Either he’s guilty under it or he isn’t. My question to you is: if he’s not guilty under the law, do you urge that the police arrest him anyway, because what he did was so obviously morally wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2012, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1769 "2012-03-25T15:30:44Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > No. What we have been doing is gasping in horror at the lack of humanity in some people who want to reduce this to an arcane misapplication of a moronic law, so that a paranoid gun nut who killed a kid gets away with doing so. Claiming it’s not murder is not an arcane misapplication of a moronic law, it’s the correct application of a well established, sensible law. If you think that believing that everyone, including actual murderers (which Zimmerman isn’t), deserve the full protection of the law makes me lacking in humanity, then there’s something very wrong with you. > [@](#): > > But it’s more than just not minding his own business. This is a guy who made it his business to go hunting for black kids, and when his business paid off, people like you can sit back and say "Well, we don’t _really_ know what happened before he shot the kid. That’s not what he did. He hunted no-one. Look, if you want to condemn Zimmerman for what he actually did, that’s one thing. If you want to claim that what he did _should_ be against the law, that’s fine, as long as you don’t claim he should be punished for it. But making stuff up is not fine, and that’s what anyone claiming it’s murder on the evidence we have is doing. Like it or not, Zimmerman was perfectly entitled to carry a gun, to follow Martin, and to ask him what he was doing. If you are going to claim he hunted him, chased him, stalked him, or anything else, you need to provide some evidence for that claim. > [@](#): > > As I keep saying, the rest of us do. Gun advocates would have been smart to distance themselves from this one from the start, politically speaking. You’re probably right there. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2012, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1770 "2012-03-25T15:41:24Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > That’s not what he did. He hunted no-one. Look, if you want to condemn Zimmerman for what he actually did, that’s one thing. If you want to claim that what he did _should_ be against the law, that’s fine, as long as you don’t claim he should be punished for it. But making stuff up is not fine, and that’s what anyone claiming it’s murder on the evidence we have is doing. Like it or not, Zimmerman was perfectly entitled to carry a gun, to follow Martin, and to ask him what he was doing. If you are going to claim he hunted him, chased him, stalked him, or anything else, you need to provide some evidence for that claim. He, uh, called the kid a coon and then went from point A to point wherever the kid was, and then he shot him dead, and whatever spider sense he was following was definitely terribly calibrated. It’s even dumber to be confident that he definitely didn’t do anything wrong than it is to say that he’s a murderer because he followed the kid, no matter what happened after that. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2012, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1771 "2012-03-25T15:53:09Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > He, uh, called the kid a coon and then went from point A to point wherever the kid was, and then he shot him dead, and whatever spider sense he was following was definitely terribly calibrated. > > It’s even dumber to be confident that he definitely didn’t do anything wrong than it is to say that he’s a murderer because he followed the kid, no matter what happened after that. I don’t agree that he called the kid a coon. I have played that recording now for 11 people. I told five that it said “coon,” before I played it, and four agreed. I told six I couldn’t understand it, and not one of them came up with “coon.” You know, we post experiments like this in other forums here on the SDMB and congratulate ourselves for being so bright as to recognize that sort of trap. Someone just recently posted a Youtube link to a very entertaining presenter who demonstrated how people, once they’ve been told what’s in an unintelligible soundbite, will much more reliably hear it. It’s funny, though, that all that critical thinking seems to vanish in this instance. However, I completely agree with you on the last point. Until we know what was in his statement, and how it matches up with the rest of the evidence, it’s foolish to believe he’s blameless. But he shouldn’t be arrested, either, until that evidence convinces either the police or a grand jury that there’s probable cause. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2012, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1772 "2012-03-25T16:05:16Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > That was actually Bricker’s characerization of what life was like before SYG set people free to “stand their ground”. This is what you wrote: > [@Stoid](#): > > A healthy ego has no attachment at all to something like needing to “stand your ground”, a healthy ego has no problem with cowering and covering one’s face to avoid damage to oneself or harm to another, especially if the alternative is killing someone. And I disagree. I don’t think a healthy person allows someone else whale on them in order to avoid damaging the other person. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2012, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1773 "2012-03-25T16:10:11Z")
> [@](#): > > The incident took place on Jan. 25, when Roteta and another youth were behind Garcia’s apartment at 201 SW 18th Ct. According to police, Roteta was stealing Garcia’s truck radio. > > Garcia, alerted by a roommate, grabbed a large knife and ran downstairs. He chased Roteta, then stabbed him in a confrontation that lasted less than a minute, according to court documents. > > The stabbing was caught on video. Roteta was carrying a bag filled with three stolen radios, but no weapon other than a pocketknife, which was unopened in his pocket and which police said he never brandished. > > After initially denying involvement in the man’s death, Garcia admitted to homicide detectives that he attacked Roteta even though “he actually never saw a weapon.” > > Garcia claimed Roteta made a move that he interpreted as a move to stab him — so he struck first. > > Prosecutors and police have argued since the Stand Your Ground law passed that it would give vigilantes free rein to strike first and ask questions later. > > In the Garcia case, prosecutors argued that the law did not apply because the truck was not “occupied” and the suspected burglar had run away. > > Once Roteta ran off, prosecutor Jennie Conklin wrote in a motion, Garcia “no longer needed to use deadly force to protect his home or unoccupied vehicle.” From [here.](http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/21/2706789/miami-judge-stabbing-in-the-back.html#storylink=cpy) The charges against Garcia were dismissed. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2012, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1774 "2012-03-25T16:19:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > From [here.](http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/21/2706789/miami-judge-stabbing-in-the-back.html#storylink=cpy) > > The charges against Garcia were dismissed. I actually don’t understand why the charges against Garcia were dismissed in this case. Yes, he could chase the guy, but how does the law allow Garcia to use deadly force when there is no indication (at least not in the article) that he could have had a reasonable fear for his life? ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2012, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1775 "2012-03-25T16:21:06Z")
> [@grude](#): > > So lets change something up, and see how it seems… That’s been my point exactly, Martin being fearful of Zimmerman was not unreasonable. Zimmerman being fearful of Martin was. > [@Steophan](#): > > **Stoid** , walking up to someone to ask them what they are doing is not evidence of reckless disregard for human life, and without criminal intent it’s not murder. You are saying two things here. One is about the meaning of the law, the other is about Zimmerman’s conduct and how it fits or doesn’t. Second degree murder, the kind that does not arise as a by-product of a criminal act, does not require criminal intent: > [@](#): > > (2) The unlawful killing of a human being, 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, is murder in the second degree… Described by a [Florida Attorney:](http://www.brucelehrpa.com/homicide-murder.php) > [@](#): > > Second-Degree – **Lack of Intention** > A murder in the second degree is the unlawful killing of a human being when an **element of lack of intention is in play**. For instance, if the death was not intentional or premeditated, it can be considered murder in the second degree, as opposed to murder in the first degree, which carries a heftier punishment. …If the death was caused by an action that displays **a blatant disregard for human life, even if it occurs without forethought and by mistake** , it is considered second degree murder. Here’s an example of [“egregious stupidity second degree murder”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murder): > [@](#): > > The common law punishes **unintentional** homicide as murder if the defendant commits **an act of gross recklessness.** A classic example of depraved-heart murder under the common law is in the case Commonwealth v. Malone, where the court affirmed the second-degree murder conviction of a teenager for a death arising from a game of Russian roulette.[2] Nolo press is dedicated to helping laymen understand the law. It has a [tidy little page](http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/homicide-murder-manslaughter-32637.html)explaining all this. > [@](#): > > What Is the Legal Definition of Murder? > Murder is an intentional killing that is: > unlawful (in other words, the killing isn’t legally justified), and > committed with “malice aforethought” (intent to harm or kill or reckless disregard for life). > Malice aforethought doesn’t mean that a killer has to have acted out of spite or hate. Malice aforethought exists if a killer intends to kill a person. > In addition, in most states, malice aforethought **isn’t limited to intentional killings**. Malice aforethought can also exist if: > a killer intentionally inflicts very serious bodily harm that causes a victim’s death, or > a killer’s behavior, which demonstrates extreme reckless disregard for the value of human life, results in a victim’s death. > Under this scheme, intent to do serious bodily harm and extreme reckless disregard **become legal equivalents** to intent to kill. Which is where Kimmy was going, in talking about malice aforethought being betokened by the depraved mind, in other words, reckless disregard subbing in for criminal intention. Nolo also provides an example reminiscent of the Martin killing, I’ve changed the names to those of our players: > [@](#): > > Facts: Zimmerman is walking along a busy street. Martin bumps into Zimmerman and continues walking without saying “Sorry.” Angered by Martin’s rudeness, Zimmerman immediately pulls out a gun and kills Clay. > > Verdict: Zimmerman could probably be convicted of second degree murder, because Zimmerman killed Clay intentionally. A judge or jury is unlikely to conclude that the killing was premeditated, which would elevate the shooting to first degree murder. On the other hand, this was not a heat of passion killing that might reduce the conviction to voluntary manslaughter. While Zimmerman might personally have been provoked into killing Martin, the circumstances were not so extreme that many ordinary and reasonable people would have been provoked to kill. Zimmerman was provoked into killing Martin. He says he was using the force he believed necessary to defend himself from being killed after Martin attacked him for no reason. If that is the truth, then there was no crime. If that is _ **not** _ true,\* then what was the crime\*? One thing everyone agrees about is that it was not premeditated murder. No one believes Zimmerman set out to kill anybody that night. So what did he do? Zimmerman, in the course of trying to do good and keep his neighborhood safe: [ul] [li]Made it a point to look for people who could be doing something wrong[/li][li]Upon seeing Martin, followed him and stared at him so obviously that Martin was totally aware that he was being followed and stared at.[/li][li]Got out of his car and approached Martin, who asked him why he was doing that.[/li][li]Chose not to answer straightforwardly and instead asked Martin why he was there.[/li][/ul] The above was stupid and provocative. Then add the fact that he did all that stupid, provocative shit with a loaded gun in his pocket. That made it extremely dangerous and extra stupid, as any law enforcement professional (and your own good sense) will tell you, the formula is very simple: Paranoia + Loaded Gun = Mayhem. Which in this case took the form of some kind of physical altercation ending with Zimmerman pulling out his loaded gun pointing it at Martin’s chest, and shooting him with it, resulting in Martin’s death. And there’s your intention: he _intended_ to shoot Martin, that’s never been a question, it was not accidental that his gun was pointed at Martin and he pulled the trigger. But did he intend to kill him? If he did intend to kill him, that’s murder. If he did not intend to kill him that’s _still_ murder: > [@](#): > > Second degree murder is any murder which is not first degree murder and can include 1) “depraved heart” murder, 2) **murder which is provoked** , and 3) second degree felony murder. > > Depraved heart murder is the **unintended** killing of another person. It requires 1) a willful and wanton disregard of human life, 2) unreasonable human risk in the act being performed, and 3) the act must result in the death of another. Ordinary or even gross negligence is not enough to satisfy these elements. The defendant’s conduct must involve a substantial or very high degree of risk to human life. The prime example of a depraved heart murder is use of a deadly weapon or application of force which causes a person to die, even if the intent of the defendant was only to injure, as opposed to kill. An example of this would be if someone were to shoot someone in the leg, only intending to wound the victim, however the victim ends up bleeding out and dying because the defendant hit the victim’s femoral artery. While there was no intent to kill, and thus no deliberation, the act of shooting someone is a reckless act and shows a disregard of risk to human life, which resulted in death, and therefore is second degree murder. The general guideline in depraved heart murder cases is that if a reasonable man would have realized the risk involved in his actions, then the defendant should be found guilty. > > A murder which is provoked by the victim will generally reduce a first degree murder to second degree. However, provocation is something that is not a concrete legal theory and is ultimately up to a jury to decide whether the provocation of any defendant is sufficient to reduce a first degree murder to second degree. If he was just being an idiot with his gun and a horribly bad shot, it was second dgree murder under the “depraved heart”, if it was more like the Nolo example of street-bumping, it was provoked. I just can’t see how, if we reject self-defense, Zimmerman killing Martin is anything other than 2nd degree murder, no matter how you look at it. > [@Carmady](#): > > **Stoid** is right that even if Martin did throw the first punch, Zimmerman could still be considered the aggressor. The law says Zimmerman is the aggressor if he: > > “Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself”. > > Using racial slurs or threats while armed and following someone on a dark street would probably qualify. Other less extreme actions might also qualify, as the wording is somewhat vague. I don’t think racial slurs qualify. If it were shown that Zimmerman was merely an asshole towards Martin, I dont’ think that justifies Martin attacking Zimmerman, because that would be a response from anger. Fuck anger. Anger is not a good reason to be violent. A good reason to be violent is **fear**. I think Zimmerman scared him, and that made him the aggressor. > [@Bricker](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by Stoid > > Yes, he should, because he engaged in activities which by their very nature could and did lead to the death of an innocent human being, so he should be convicted of second degree murder. > > That is not the correct description of what he did ( as far as I am aware) Zimmerman did not engage in activities which by their very nature could and did lead to the death of an innocent human being? Then who killed Martin, and how did they do it? > [@Bricker](#): > > and that is not the correct description of second degree murder. > > I know you disagree. I disagree with _you_, but I agree with all the Florida lawyers and all the other legal sources I could find, as exhaustively demonstrated, so I’m ok it. I’m also OK with confining myself to discussing this case. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2012, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1776 "2012-03-25T16:30:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s funny, though, that all that critical thinking seems to vanish in this instance. Thanks for that. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2012, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1777 "2012-03-25T16:34:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t agree that he called the kid a coon. > You know, we post experiments like this in other forums here on the SDMB and congratulate ourselves for being so bright as to recognize that sort of trap. Someone just recently posted a Youtube link to a very entertaining presenter who demonstrated how people, once they’ve been told what’s in an unintelligible soundbite, will much more reliably hear it. > > It’s funny, though, that all that critical thinking seems to vanish in this instance. I’m right there with you on this one. ---
**Author:** ![Carmady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f04885/32.png) [@Carmady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carmady)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2012, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1778 "2012-03-25T16:40:49Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > I don’t think a healthy person allows someone else whale on them in order to avoid damaging the other person. If Zimmerman was legally the aggressor, he can’t jump to using deadly force. If he was the aggressor, then the question is: Would a reasonable person believe that the only means Zimmerman had to escape imminent death or great bodily harm was to kill Martin? As Martin himself was unarmed and could not reasonably be considered a criminal, I believe the answer is almost certainly no (there can be no absolute certainty with the facts we have). He could have taken a defensive posture and covered his face with his arms. Again, that is only if Zimmerman was the aggressor, and therefore required to exhaust all other means of escaping imminent death or great bodily harm before resorting to deadly force. “Healthy” has nothing to do with it. If you, for example, stab someone and they fight back, under that law you would be required to try all means of escape before stabbing them again (fatally). It isn’t that it is necessarily “healthy” to take more punches when you could stop it with a quick stab. It is that you brought that extra requirement on yourself by stabbing them in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2012, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1779 "2012-03-25T16:57:26Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > I disagree with _you_, but I agree with all the Florida lawyers and all the other legal sources I could find, as exhaustively demonstrated, so I’m ok it. Your explanation of the Garcia case, then? Was that among the cases you looked at? > [@](#): > > I’m also OK with confining myself to discussing this case. Of course. And if this case also ends up showing you in error, the next one we discuss will undoubtedly include your voluminous posts and an insistence that we don’t mention this one. Right? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2012, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504/1780 "2012-03-25T17:01:52Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Which is where Kimmy was going, in talking about malice aforethought being betokened by the depraved mind, in other words, reckless disregard subbing in for criminal intention. I am confident that **Kimmy** agrees with my statement that second degree murder in Florida has an intent element. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504.md?page=88) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-the-neighborhood-watch-shooter-been-arrested/615504.md?page=90)