[dr2005]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Please explain to me how a man being bashed in the head is supposed to take time to weigh his options carefully.

If he had enough time and presence of mind to reach for his gun, remove it from the holster, release the safety, take aim and fire, then clearly he wasn't being bashed around the head enough to affect his thought process that much. It also doesn't explain why he went for his gun rather than trying to fight back, or go for a disabling strike like a knee to the groin. That tends to work pretty well if you want someone to stop punching you, believe me.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

You do NOT shoot to wound. You shoot to neutralize the threat. The fastest way to neutralize a threat is to kill it.

So if neutralise is basically a euphemism for kill, you are in effect suggesting that manslaugher is impossible with a firearm if the gun is drawn intentionally. Correct? If not, please explain why.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Again, i really don't see how a rational person could look at this and say, "Well, even though he was being physically assaulted and feared for his life, he should have stopped, waited, thought out his actions, considered them carefully, and then chose the decision that I like the best because I don't feel like Trayvon should have been killed."

See above. If he had enough time to use his gun, he had enough time to go for the groin or similar. He made a conscious decision to use his gun.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Except that a firearm is for killing. That's why they were made. That's why people carry firearms, to kill people trying to kill them. Which is what Zimmerman did. He shot someone who he felt was trying to kill him.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that smoke grenade launchers and similar non-lethal weapons are also classed as firearms, as indeed is a firearm loaded with non-lethal rounds. With respect, you need to be more careful with your sweeping statements.

Also, on your comments regarding Martin being a 6'3 "footballer in his prime", 1) he was 6'0 and 2) his weight figures in this article hardly suggest he was a "footballer in his prime". I weigh more than Martin did and I would not expect to last 10 minutes in an American football match, despite the fact I am in pretty good shape. I would be flattened. Exaggeration does not do anyone any favours in cases such as these.

Originally Posted by thebigmole

Definition of murder: Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter).

"Malice aforethought" simply means intention to kill (hence why I made such a big deal out of the "a firearm is meant to kill" argument and its implications for intent). It doesn't require pre-planning as such, merely that the defendant carried out the fatal act with intent rather than in a state of reckelessness as to the consequences. As such, given that he admitted to the shooting, he would appear to possess both the actus reus and mens rea and is therefore culpable of murder as opposed to manslaughter if he is to be charged with any offence. Intention negates manslaughter pretty much automatically. That is why he claimed self-defence as his rationale.

Originally Posted by Caliber

I understand what you're saying about the intent being relevant in relation to the charges, but not with the self defense argument. Shooting someone in the shoulder is still using deadly force. Other than that Ben, explained my thoughts well.

Self-defence is another matter altogether, and one I have addressed below in response to one of Ben's posts. I have a feeling we may be talking past each other on the deadly force point, so I will sum up as follows: deadly force encompasses force which is likely to kill or cause serious injury. By aiming directly at the chest, at effectively point-blank range, it is far more likely that death is the result. Hence why I made a point of where exactly he was aiming.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Anyone have a pdf reader?

http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012-04/69353440.pdf

Affadavit of Probable Cause.

It sounds like they're hinging their offense on the authority of the civilian dispatcher.

This is not going to end well for them.

If he was advised not to pursue and did so anyway, that could be interpreted as provoking the confrontation (particularly in light of testimony suggesting Zimmerman pushed Martin in an attempt to apprehend him). If Zimmerman did not possess lawful authority to pursue and apprehend, then he committed an unlawful act in the first place and it throws the self-defence argument into doubt. I'm not saying it's as clear-cut as that by any means, but having read the affidavit there is certainly a case to answer, and a serious one at that.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

We know can pretty much safely ascertain that this is not the case, and is actually a matter of a smaller man being held down and beaten by a larger man.

You've mentioned this "being held down and beaten by a larger man" without any sourcing for quite some time now, and I've let it lie up to this point. However, I'm now going to call you out and challenge you to provide a source that proves he was indeed holding Zimmerman down and knocking seven bells out of him. Not just "punching him" - exactly as you describe it. I await with interest.