George Zimmmerman, Murder 2 and a "Depraved Mind"

What tactics and arguments will the Prosecution make to establish the "depraved mind" of Zimm to the jurors?

Definition

Depravity of mind refers to the state of mind which is contrary to justice, honesty or morality. Depravity of mind is a condition where there is a deviation or departure from the ordinary standards of honest, good morals, justice, or ethics as to be shocking to the moral sense of the society. Depravity of mind can also be described as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a person owes to another, or to a community.

This is an academic exercise, if all you got are the tired ad hominems of partisan rankle, please take it to another thread.

 

I really do not see how the State is going to prove "depraved mind". That is why I feel that Murder 2 is too much of a reach. It also does not meet "mens rea" and the five modes of the Model Penal Code.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

this case fits better with Criminal Negligence:

 

The State has overwhelming evidence to charge Zimmy with 1st Degree murder ... what's missing to prove beyond a resonable doubt for a conviction of first degree murder ... is intent ...

The defense only has the moment Zimmy shot Martin to death ... as self-defense ... this is why portraying Martin as a black demonic hoodie-wearing no-limit young brutha is critical ...

 

Do you even know what 1st degree murder is????

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ring&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html

Please explain how this case qualifies for 1st degree.

 

After the 911 call screams audio came out ... I realized that Zimmy executed Martin ... this goes to intent.

 

Even if it is true that TM was pleading for his life, that does not fall under 1st degree per Florida statutes. 1st degree requires premeditation and/or committing one of the listed crimes.....the only one that comes close is possibly (h).

 

C'mon, Murder 1 is out, no premeditation.

 

This is correct ... this is why Zimmy is charged with 2nd Degree Murder ... it is also why Zimmy waived his right to self-defense as Stand Your Ground ... he's already done enough damage to himself with public confessions ...

 

They don't have to portray him that way, that's who he was.

 

Then why did you make the claim that the State had enough to charge him with Murder in the 1st?

Also, he did not waive his right to a SYG hearing, he just declined to have one prior to the standard self-defense case.

 

Yes ? Who says he was ?

- - - Updated - - -

The State can do what it pleases to anyone they want anytime they want ... and there's nothing you can do ... as Zimmy has found out.

Say for instance ... thier are about 4 classes of felonies ... practically all based on a defendants predisposition to violence and crime ...

 

I think you are confusing the State with the Obama administration.

 

M2 in Florida is not just "depraved mind". It is also "hate" or "spite". The fact that GZ profiled TM without regard to who he was as a person. The fact that GZ cussed out TM without knowing anything about it him shows that GZ had made up his mind about TM without regard for who he was as a human being. State can show that easy. For GZ, TM was not a person he was an a hole and a punk.

 

This is exactly O'Mara's defense ... believe everybody is stupid.

 

The State would have a very hard time proving that since the FBI's investigation stated that this was not a racial issue. Also, GZ had no way of know what kind of person TM was (as the State has presented many times) since he did not meet him prior to the incident. I also do not see the jury believing that GZ's comment about punks (or whatever word each person hears) is directed towards TM specifically and not towards thieves in general.

 

Straw man babbling. All that is needed for an acquittal is reasonable doubt. Here is what reasonable doubt looks like:

 

I didn't say anything about race.

Your second part supports my position. GZ judged TM without knowing anything about him and not witnessing any crime.

 

Gonna be tough to prove "depravity."

Hung jury, people.

 

There is absolutely nothing illegal about that. I judge people all the time without knowing them.....so do you.....so does everybody. Being suspicious of somebody is not a crime and in a lot of cases, may be healthy.

 

Point is, just as the State was correct in arguing that TM's past should not be used because GZ did not personally know TM, proving the GZ "hated TM" or acted with hate towards TM.....without personally knowing him, is a huge stretch.

The argument of hate pertains to an individual person, it does not pertain to hating a situation (i.e. crime in the community).

 

doesn't have to be illegal. It goes to the level of the charge.

For example, thinking about killing someone is not illegal. But if you follow through with that thought it becomes premeditated murder.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not a stretch. It is GZ's recorded voice and statements.

 

Please elaborate.

 

they will lie, cheat and steal....like they have so far.

 

On what?

 

true dat. even the state knows they over charged. this nonsense of actually trying to prove the charges is ridiculous.