Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Stalking is defined in the State of Florida as "willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly following, harassing or cyberstalking" another.
TM was not following GZ ..he only asked "Why are you following me" and seconds later DEAD... SO please explain how someone staling another..coming face to face with them..then killing them indicate Victim was wrong.....IF you want to claim TM was the confronter..Fine..but he was Unarmed and steps from his destination..Why would he want to have some sort of creepy follower get to his destination?? For all he knew..this creepy guy meant harm..He never spoke or explained why he was following... Course much was left out of the case wether it was do to Judge or lack of Pros. CIC..BUT Sunshine exposed just what actually happened..and apologist's constantly want to say..He's innocent because ..
All I can say at this point..Is Karma's a B$t&c*..and already less than a few years gone by, GZ's proclivities are creating legal problems for him and whomever choses to relate to this pariah!!
Again, RIF. Stalking requires that the activity occur repeatedly. Given that it didn't occur repeatedly, it wasn't stalking.
.
TM was not following GZ ..he only asked "Why are you following me" and seconds later DEAD... ....
All I can say at this point..Is Karma's a B$t&c*..and already less than a few years gone by, GZ's proclivities are creating legal problems for him and whomever choses to relate to this pariah!!
Since you were not there, there is no way you can know this. There was no testimony or evidence in court that supports the premise that you put forth. However if you are so sure that it happened this way, then why didn't you contact the prosecutor with your "evidence".
What legal problems? The accusation this entire topic has been based on, as been recanted by the individual who made it. In addition the irresponsible and race pandering Obama Administration has also had to drop it's investigation of Zimmerman because there was no evidence of any hate crime being committed.
I see a lot of wishful thinking here, which IMO, only exists because TM was Black and presumed to have been killed by a "White". If Zimmerman had been Black, then TM would be another Black on Black crime victim the race hucksters, pandering politicians, MSM and the African American community would pay no attention to and this topic wouldn't exist.
There's no way to prove it either way, but I'd bet that most people who think the jury verdict was correct, either formed, or changed their opinion to NG, after the evidence was produced.
Most who believe the verdict was wrong had their opinion formed from the day 'armed white man kills unarmed black child' hit the headlines.
We still hear the lies that Z was trained in MMA, left his car after being ordered not to, the police had stopped the investigation, and so many more.
Even with the DOJ failing to bring an indictment after 3 years, you still don't get it --- Z didn't commit a crime that night.
1. Those such as yourself keep harping of "evidence being produced". Which "evidence" would that be? (Evidence, NOT from what Z said or those silly dribbling-blood scratches.
2. Contrary to your believing those such as myself "had our opinion formed" by those headlines, you are wrong, at least in my case. I needed to hear the entire story, and after putting it together logically and including being a good judge of character, my decision was established by this:
*One following another due to making immediate and unjust judgements.
*His Police calls, what was said, how GZ sounded during.
*His not stopping when asked "not to follow", obviously to me, still stalking.
*What was recorded on T's phone, prior to it being dropped.
*That it was a short time from when the confrontation began, until T was shot.
*Evidence: T's body found in unlikely spot, no DNA found on either to corroborate story.
*Z's wounds deemed "surface abrasions", not admitted to a hospital, despite what he claimed.
*Seeing the reenactment with investigators, how Z stumbled in recreating his story.
*Hearing Z's further story alterations.
*That Z had prior bouts of violence (and since, which is WHY this topic began).
3. As far as the MMA, or "ending the investigation", I don't know. However, regarding the call, it makes sense that from what he said to the dispatcher, that he wanted to keep following. He had already been out of his truck (that he was supposed to return to), but it is while walking, when he asked if they could "just call me when they are on their way, and I'll tell them where I am". (Did you not hear the recording?)
4. You say Z "didn't commit a crime that night". I know some choose to believe that, for whatever reasons, confused notions, limited information, having trust in the trial or relating to the killer.
Many feel as I and not due it being "black / white" as assumed, but based upon points made and logic. Many know that the trial had a lot wrong with it and appeared superficial. The bottom line is, it is obvious, he has always been trouble, yet some refuse to see reality or hear the truth, which the rest of us do.
Weight is in no way irrelevant. If it were, professional fighters wouldn't be classified into weight categories. About all that can be said is that weight by itself does not necessarily determine the outcome of a fight.
Weight only matters when you have two trained fighters with comparable skills.
Is this really so confusing to you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bellflower
But do be an angel and lay out that forensic evidence for us if you please.
1. Those such as yourself keep harping of "evidence being produced". Which "evidence" would that be? (Evidence, NOT from what Z said or those silly dribbling-blood scratches.
2. Contrary to your believing those such as myself "had our opinion formed" by those headlines, you are wrong, at least in my case. I needed to hear the entire story, and after putting it together logically and including being a good judge of character, my decision was established by this:
*One following another due to making immediate and unjust judgements.
*His Police calls, what was said, how GZ sounded during.
*His not stopping when asked "not to follow", obviously to me, still stalking.
*What was recorded on T's phone, prior to it being dropped.
*That it was a short time from when the confrontation began, until T was shot.
*Evidence: T's body found in unlikely spot, no DNA found on either to corroborate story.
*Z's wounds deemed "surface abrasions", not admitted to a hospital, despite what he claimed.
*Seeing the reenactment with investigators, how Z stumbled in recreating his story.
*Hearing Z's further story alterations.
*That Z had prior bouts of violence (and since, which is WHY this topic began).
3. As far as the MMA, or "ending the investigation", I don't know. However, regarding the call, it makes sense that from what he said to the dispatcher, that he wanted to keep following. He had already been out of his truck (that he was supposed to return to), but it is while walking, when he asked if they could "just call me when they are on their way, and I'll tell them where I am". (Did you not hear the recording?)
4. You say Z "didn't commit a crime that night". I know some choose to believe that, for whatever reasons, confused notions, limited information, having trust in the trial or relating to the killer.
Many feel as I and not due it being "black / white" as assumed, but based upon points made and logic. Many know that the trial had a lot wrong with it and appeared superficial. The bottom line is, it is obvious, he has always been trouble, yet some refuse to see reality or hear the truth, which the rest of us do.
You're doing it again, as you did in the post I responded to:
"Their decision about the incident was decided due to relating to the criminal or giving preference to him over one assumed to have been a certain way that they dislike... more elaborating."
You're smitten with the belief that those of us who agree with the verdict do so because we identify with Z or dislike TM. You're too arrogant to acknowledge that others can view the evidence differently. All I did was give an opinion that More people who think the jury was wrong believed Z was a murderer from day 1, the evidence be darned.
Take just one of your excuses --- 'the trial had a lot wrong and appeared superficial.' Sure, as if Corey, Bernie, et. al. threw the case for some convoluted reason. If the trial looked that way to you, it's because the case was a stinker to begin with.
In2itive, you highlight an important point. It is crystal clear that for many (the evidence being their posts) this case was never really about Zimmerman but all about Sharpton, Jackson, Crump, Obama and the "liberal" media, less about Zimmerman's forensics-defying fiction and more about gun rights and the nefarious black agenda. Hence, the rather bizarre fixation on things like photos of Trayvon looking too young or acting too ghetto, recipes for lean, indignation over black on black crime and semantic nonsense games surrounding the dispatcher's words. What remains unaddressed: Zimmerman's actions, behavior, personal accountability and demonstrable lies and they will remain unaddressed because that is the only way to keep the onus on the kid rather than the killer.
Since you were not there, there is no way you can know this. There was no testimony or evidence in court that supports the premise that you put forth. However if you are so sure that it happened this way, then why didn't you contact the prosecutor with your "evidence".
What legal problems? The accusation this entire topic has been based on, as been recanted by the individual who made it. In addition the irresponsible and race pandering Obama Administration has also had to drop it's investigation of Zimmerman because there was no evidence of any hate crime being committed.
I see a lot of wishful thinking here, which IMO, only exists because TM was Black and presumed to have been killed by a "White". If Zimmerman had been Black, then TM would be another Black on Black crime victim the race hucksters, pandering politicians, MSM and the African American community would pay no attention to and this topic wouldn't exist.
First of all, obviously, nobody could just "contact the prosecutor with evidence".
Sure, there would not be "evidence of a hate crime", anyway. It's only that he was stalking the one he focused his suspicions on THAT night, having made numerous calls to report everyone he had seen, prior. (He apparently "wanted so badly to be involved".. remember, he wanted to be a cop, he wanted to prove something to others. THAT appeared to be his motivation. (I've never been one to believe it was purely racially-motivated, being a combination of impulses for GZ). And I don't think it has been about him "being perceived as white" - too much focusing on that, when it is that he is a proven hothead with poor character, no matter what his race.
Who knows if he would have kept tracking him if he'd discovered he was a white guy, or if it had been two black men involved under the same circumstances or any other race. I don't know if there would be a "black wannabe cop" would have followed another Black guy he was suspect of....it is situational and comes down to the character of an individual, their mentality, whomever's actions were wrong, who had a weapon, who attacked and why, no matter what.
In2itive, you highlight an important point. It is crystal clear that for many (the evidence being their posts) this case was never really about Zimmerman but all about Sharpton, Jackson, Crump, Obama and the "liberal" media, less about Zimmerman's forensics-defying fiction and more about gun rights and the nefarious black agenda. Hence, the rather bizarre fixation on things like photos of Trayvon looking too young or acting too ghetto, recipes for lean, indignation over black on black crime and semantic nonsense games surrounding the dispatcher's words. What remains unaddressed: Zimmerman's actions, behavior, personal accountability and demonstrable lies and they will remain unaddressed because that is the only way to keep the onus on the kid rather than the killer.
Yep, you got that right! (OH, if only you and I and some others I see here could have been on that Jury).
It is crystal clear that for many (the evidence being their posts) this case was never really about Zimmerman but all about Sharpton, Jackson, Crump, Obama and the "liberal" media,
[snip]
Perfect example of the arrogance I was talking about. Per you, "Many' who agree with the verdict never cared about the evidence. otoh, you who disagreed really, Really, REALLY, fairly, objectively, logically evaluated all the evidence. Sure
BTW, the cherub picture of TM as a 12 or 13 year-old child Did influence one of the witnesses who talked to the cops. She later revised her testimony when she saw the 17 year-old version. The images of him did matter.
In2itive, you highlight an important point. It is crystal clear that for many (the evidence being their posts) this case was never really about Zimmerman but all about Sharpton, Jackson, Crump, Obama and the "liberal" media, less about Zimmerman's forensics-defying fiction and more about gun rights and the nefarious black agenda. Hence, the rather bizarre fixation on things like photos of Trayvon looking too young or acting too ghetto, recipes for lean, indignation over black on black crime and semantic nonsense games surrounding the dispatcher's words. What remains unaddressed: Zimmerman's actions, behavior, personal accountability and demonstrable lies and they will remain unaddressed because that is the only way to keep the onus on the kid rather than the killer.
This is a case where many hold the teen more responsible than the adult. It appears this is why the defense fought to keep first aggressor statute out of the trial and the state didn't fight hard enough to keep it in. It could have changed the outcome of this wrongful verdict.
The demonstrative aide of the cut out of TM made taller than he truly was ( I guess one grows when dead) as compared to the weight of the aggressor, GZ. GZ started this fist fight he brought a gun to. TM had a right to defend himself and that one little scratch on his knuckle could have been from wrestling around on the grass, as GZ brought this upon TM, for no DNA of GZ found on TM's hands or under his fingernails, TM must have had invisihands to accomplish that. Or the huge piece of concrete brought in, which I've seen no such evidence that GZ was one spoonful away from wearing diapers. He must have super healing powers for in the next 45 minutes he showed no signs as he ran up the stairs at the police precinct wearing sunglasses on that allegedly broken nose.
Then there's the target run. GZ only had fifty cents on him, what can be bought at target?
We had the benefit of GZs entire life in the documents that the jurors didn't get to see. His entire character, personality is one of being a bully, a liar, a woman beater, a dog kicker is something the jurors should have been able to see to show the defendants anger and rage issues.
Had GZ kept his ass in his truck, TM would not be dead.
He will strike again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
