“In order to convict a defendant in Florida of Second-degree murder, the State of Florida must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
The victim is dead; The death was caused by the criminal act of the defendant; There was an unlawful killing of the victim by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.”
Thanks. OK, here goes:
1. The victim is dead: Obvious
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of the defendant: Again, obvious. Zimmerman shot Martin, which caused his death.
3. There was an unlawful killing of the victim by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.: This one is the tricky one. There was clearly a killing (leaving aside the "unlawful" part, since more than enough has been said about that already), and Zimmerman's act of shooting him was clearly "imminently dangerous to another." The "depraved mind without regard for human life" part is tough to prove. I think this, too, will come down to the self-defense issue, because the prosecutor will likely argue that, without justification, the act of intentionally shooting someone is an act that, in itself, demonstrates a depraved mind. I doubt that any jury that would find that Zimmerman's actions were not justified would somehow also find that he did not act with a depraved mind.
Interesting, but when you state: “2. The death was caused by the criminal act of the defendant: Again, obvious. Zimmerman shot Martin, which caused his death”
There is nothing from what we know, no facts we are aware, to state the shooting was criminal in nature. Just allegations but no proof and the prosecution offers none.
Shooting someone in self-defense to repel a home invasion, for example, or shooting someone to save your life (in fear of your life or the life of another) most certainly is not a criminal act. So, just because someone shot someone is not by itself a criminal act. Therefore, element #2 is not proved as the state offers no proof at this time to prove he acted unlawfully when the thug was shot.
I suggest the state has no facts to prove beyond a reasonable doubt element #2 was a criminal act.
Element 3, that would need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and if not proved then element #2 most certainly is a non-issue.
The state has to prove all three elements and I think even Ray Charles can see the state is over-charging and has no chance of a Murder 2 conviction. It is all for show.