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.
When a 17 year old is being followed first by car, then on foot and scared of that person I doubt he/she would care if they are being "stalked" by the legal definition of the word or the common definition of the word. People who refuse to see that Martin had a reason to be fearful that night have their heads up their butts.
We've established that "following" (as you admit in your first 8 words) someone isn't illegal.
YOU'RE the one who posted the "definitions" of "stalking" to defend your weak position...I pointed out they weren't the LEGAL definitions.
He stalked [from the dogpath to the T] and escalated into deadly force [by beating him] and was shot to death by Zimmerman.
Yep....That's why Trayvon's body was down the path about 50'....
That is the running mantra for George's supporters....George did nothing wrong. He was looking for an address...Right...With a loaded gun, after escalating from "watching" to following. Keep telling yourself that.
Basically stalking is : A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person. Which is probably why he is not being charged with stalking.
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose. The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests.
(c) “Credible threat” means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution under this section.
Zimmerman precipitated his "justification" for deadly force.
I hope that when he's in prison, he can explain to the other inmates that he is a convicted creep.
Trust me. Outside of child molestation, prisoners aren't exactly the type of people who look down on crime.
Zimmerman's main threat in prison would be a racially motivated attack by black inmates who generally target white and Latino inmates and especially target whites and Latino inmates who are in for committing a crime against a black person.
And his best chance of survival would be hanging around racist white and Latino inmates who would be sympathetic towards him because he killed a black person and some would view him as a hero in there.
So that would be his life in prison. Placed in PC or hanging out with a bunch of skinheads and Cuban and Colombian gangsters while trying to avoid getting stabbed with a sharpened toothbrush.
No one knows who started it. Everything each party did was legal up to the point of who initiated the physical contact. There is no proof who did this, the burden is on the state to prove Zimmerman did it.
You don't need to accept lies to rule on lies.
Adverse inference on lies can be quite broad, and still fit within the "contrived circumstance".
"Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk." Thoreau
Yes, friends, this jury can go well beyond "obstructing a police investigation with perjurious statements to the police".
This jury can take it to the case's final end, murder.
...and not intimidating enough to the point of putting the one being followed on the defensive? Do you actually believe if GZ was wearing identifying gear, which is encouraged in the Neighborhood Watch manuals, or if GZ verbally indentified himslef to TM, this would have turned out the way it has? That is the essence of this "following" thing that you attempt to make so innocuous.
BTW...my question is not rhetorical.
GZ was a civilian headed to the store. He was legally carrying a gun like I and others with a CCW might do.
There was no official identifying gear to be worn and as a Civilian he could legally watch or follow anyone out on a public street. He called 911 and was one the phone trying to coordinate with their arrival.
He could have ignored TM. It was not illegal to do so and he did procedures correctly.
Yep....That's why Trayvon's body was down the path about 50'....
That is the running mantra for George's supporters....George did nothing wrong. He was looking for an address...Right...With a loaded gun, after escalating from "watching" to following. Keep telling yourself that.
People seem to lose site of the fact that in pretty much any state except Florida, Zimmerman is in jail for quite a long time for sure. The way this law is written is the issue, plain and simple. Perhaps the Judge thinks it's her place to do something about it. Who knows.
Yep....That's why Trayvon's body was down the path about 50'....
That is the running mantra for George's supporters....George did nothing wrong. He was looking for an address...Right...With a loaded gun, after escalating from "watching" to following. Keep telling yourself that.
50 feet is not even the distance between home plate and the pitcher's mound.
I look back at myself and some of the guys from my neighborhood at 15, 16, and 17 and although we weren't legally adults; we weren't exactly small children. Many of us drove. Most of us had already had sex. Nearly all of us had done drugs. We would regularly get into into fistfights with each other and strangers. And some of the guys I knew were criminals and some of them have since ended up in prison as adults.
Statistically speaking, males aged 16-24 are the most violent demographic. You have a mixture of inexperience, testosterone, and a chorus of other guys in your age group saying, "Are you going to let him get away with that?" anytime words are exchanged.
I doubt Zimmerman terrorized and menaced Trayvon. From his own friend's account of their conversation before the confrontation which lead to the shooting; when she was asked why Travyon didn't go home after evading Zimmerman instead of going back to confront him she responded with "Trayvon wasn't like that" and that he also referred to him as a "creepy-ass cracker". That doesn't sound like someone who frightened. It sounds like someone who was pissed off and wanted to teach someone a lesson.
Maybe he was "terrorized" by the fact that Zimmerman was larger than him, so he couldn't risk confronting him directly in the possibility he might lose, so he chose to jump out and sucker punch him instead and paid the price for it.
Do I think Trayvon "deserved" to die? No. Not even if he completely started it. However, Zimmerman wasn't wrong to kill him. Have you ever had someone on top of your chest punching your face? I have. Now, unless you have extensive training in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu or Judo and know the various sweeps to get out of it, it is a very hard position to get out of.
There are basically three ways to get out it if you have no formal training:
1) Start thrashing from side-to-side and try to get the person on top to lose balance. If they they are well positioned, it probably will not work and you still are getting punched in the face in the meantime.
2) Try to roll over onto your stomach and use your better position to stand-up as it is easier to use your arms and your back can support their weight easier. This is actually relatively easy. However, you also risk at least one chokehold in this position, it makes it harder to protect your face in the meantime, it also exposes the neck and the back of head (which holds the part of the brain which controls literally all your vital functions and blows to the back of head are one of the most causes of routine fistfights resulting in death) to additional punches, and it also makes it easier for the other guy to slam your face into the ground.
3) Eye gouge, claw at the mouth or nose, grab the testicles, grab and bite his hand, or shoot him. This is the easiest and probably most effective way for Joe Schmo and they are also banned in every type of martial arts competition because they all can lead to serious injury, but when you have someone punching you in the face and you cannot get out of it, your instincts kick in and there is almostnothing you will not do to get out it.
Zimmerman picked Option #3.
George's version is what you believe. It's understandable you would think that. Defending the indefensible actions of George seems to be his only defense.
Basically stalking is : A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person. Which is probably why he is not being charged with stalking.
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose. The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests.
(c) “Credible threat” means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution under this section.
Yes. Exactly...and zimmerman obviously wasn't "stalking" anyone...according to evidence already given in the trial.
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.
