I guess it depends on what definition of "murder" you are using. The legal definition would not support your theory. Murder also has such a negative connotation that it doesn't fit with self-defense.

 

To me it's pretty simple. You intentionally take another's life (regardless of circumstance) it's murder.

 

 

A robber breaks into my house in the middle of the night, I'm grabbing my gun and killing the robber. I'm legally justified, but make no mistake about it, I murdered the guy.

To me it's pretty simple. You intentionally take another's life (regardless of circumstance) it's murder.

 

I would think the vast majority would not support your definition.

Absolutely. There's scientific research and studies to back up the assertion that eye witnesses aren't reliable.

 

From six year agos, but still a very good informative read on the subject: "How Reliable is Eyewitness Testimony?"

 

This from the investigator who called for Zimmerman's arrest:

 

 

 

But Serino wrote in a report that he played a 911 call for Martin's father, Tracy, in which the screams are heard multiple times.

 

"I asked Mr. Martin if the voice calling for help was that of his son," the officer wrote. "Mr. Martin, clearly emotionally impacted by the recording, quietly responded `no."'

 

Zimmerman's father also told investigators that it was his son yelling for help on March 19.

 

"That is absolutely positively George Zimmerman," Robert Zimmerman said. "He was not just yelling, he sounded like he was screaming for his life."

 

Investigators sent all the recordings to the FBI for analysis. They were asked to determine who was screaming, and also if Zimmerman might have used an expletive in describing Martin. Prosecutors said in their charging documents that Zimmerman said "(expletive) punks" in describing Martin as he walked in the neighborhood.

 

But the analyst who examined the recordings determined the sound quality is too poor to decipher what Zimmerman uttered. In regards to the screams during the altercation, there also wasn't enough clarity to determine who it is "due to extreme stress and unsuitable audio quality."

I would think the vast majority would not support your definition.

 

That's fine. I'm not looking for them to.

This from the investigator who called for Zimmerman's arrest:

 

 

 

But Serino wrote in a report that he played a 911 call for Martin's father, Tracy, in which the screams are heard multiple times.

 

"I asked Mr. Martin if the voice calling for help was that of his son," the officer wrote. "Mr. Martin, clearly emotionally impacted by the recording, quietly responded `no."'

 

Zimmerman's father also told investigators that it was his son yelling for help on March 19.

 

"That is absolutely positively George Zimmerman," Robert Zimmerman said. "He was not just yelling, he sounded like he was screaming for his life."

 

Investigators sent all the recordings to the FBI for analysis. They were asked to determine who was screaming, and also if Zimmerman might have used an expletive in describing Martin. Prosecutors said in their charging documents that Zimmerman said "(expletive) punks" in describing Martin as he walked in the neighborhood.

 

But the analyst who examined the recordings determined the sound quality is too poor to decipher what Zimmerman uttered. In regards to the screams during the altercation, there also wasn't enough clarity to determine who it is "due to extreme stress and unsuitable audio quality."

 

 

And that is why I believe it was Zimmerman. Martin's father is the person who I'm trusting on this issue as he had no time to be counseled on what to say.

I'm interested to see how the testimony of the girlfriend impacts the jury. If I remember correctly she was on the phone with Trayvon.

This from the investigator who called for Zimmerman's arrest:

 

 

 

But Serino wrote in a report that he played a 911 call for Martin's father, Tracy, in which the screams are heard multiple times.

 

"I asked Mr. Martin if the voice calling for help was that of his son," the officer wrote. "Mr. Martin, clearly emotionally impacted by the recording, quietly responded `no."'

 

Zimmerman's father also told investigators that it was his son yelling for help on March 19.

 

 

Now the father is saying "hold up."

 

 

The police report states that Trayvon Martin's father told an investigator after listening to 911 tapes that captured a man's voice frantically callling for help that it was not his son calling for help.

 

But Tracy Martin, Trayvon's father, claims that is not true. The Martin family lawyer Ben Crump told ABC News that Tracy Martin initially listened to a distorted version of the 911 calls and said he could not identify the voice. But when he listened to a second tape that had been "cleaned," "He immediately broke down in tears because he knew it was his son calling for help," Crump said.

 

Cops, Witnesses Back Up George Zimmerman's Version - ABC News

I have no idea what you're talking about now. I never said Martin wasn't beating the crap out of Zimmerman. I said the eyewitness wasn't watching the moment the gun was fired. He had went to call 911 and heard a pop.

You are claiming eye witness testimony is not reliable to discredit the witness stating Martin was on top of Zimmerman. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable when it comes to same details like identifying someone's face. However this witness is only stating the guy on top had on a hoody. What's would be unreliable about that?

 

I don't recall anyone claiming the witness saw the shot.

To me it's pretty simple. You intentionally take another's life (regardless of circumstance) it's murder.

 

 

A robber breaks into my house in the middle of the night, I'm grabbing my gun and killing the robber. I'm legally justified, but make no mistake about it, I murdered the guy.

Sorry, but by definition murder is the unlawful taking of another person's life. You killed the guy but you did not murder him in your example.

^Well, that matters a great deal. If no one saw the shot, no one can claim that Zimmerman was in danger. For all we know Zimmerman could've got Martin off him, pulled a gun and delivered the kill shot. The only way the "in danger" defense works is if Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he fired. I'm surprised that information hasn't came out yet. They should be able to determine by the angle of the shot what position they were in.

Sorry, but by definition murder is the unlawful taking of another person's life. You killed the guy but you did not murder him in your example.

 

Nope. I see murder as the intentional taking of another's life.

 

You're pretty strongly against abortion, aren't you? You consider that murder, right? If so, sounds like you have the same definition of murder as I do...

^Well, that matters a great deal. If no one saw the shot, no one can claim that Zimmerman was in danger. For all we know Zimmerman could've got Martin off him, pulled a gun and delivered the kill shot. The only way the "in danger" defense works is if Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he fired. I'm surprised that information hasn't came out yet. They should be able to determine by the angle of the shot what position they were in.

 

Now this agree with. However it is on the prosecution to prove this.

The only way the "in danger" defense works is if Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he fired. I'm surprised that information hasn't came out yet. They should be able to determine by the angle of the shot what position they were in.

 

Police witnesses say the guy in the hoodie was on top of another guy beating him.

 

"He witnesses a black male, wearing a dark colored 'hoodie' on top of a white or Hispanic male and throwing punches 'MMA (mixed martial arts) style,'" the police report of the witness said. "He then heard a pop. He stated that after hearing the pop, he observed the person he had previously observed on top of the other person (the male wearing the hoodie) laid out on the grass."

 

A second witness described a person on the ground with another straddling him and throwing punches. The man on the bottom was yelling for help, the witness told police.

Nope. I see murder as the intentional taking of another's life.

 

You're pretty strongly against abortion, aren't you? You consider that murder, right? If so, sounds like you have the same definition of murder as I do...

And you would be wrong on your definition of murder. Now homicide is the taking of another person's life. However all homicides are no unlawful. Murder is a crime, there is no legal murder.

 

Sorry but you lost me on your abortion example. Those that consider abortion murder do so because you are intentionally killing another human being without cause.

And you would be wrong on your definition of murder. Now homicide is the taking of another person's life. However all homicides are no unlawful. Murder is a crime, there is no legal murder.

 

Sorry but you lost me on your abortion example. Those that consider abortion murder do so because you are intentionally killing another human being without cause.

 

I struggle to find the cause for Zimmerman killing Martin.

 

You're wrong about abortion. It's legal, therefore per your definition, it can't be murder.