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.
Just because you're acquitted of murder 2 doesn't mean you didn't do it--it just means they couldn't prove beyond any reasonable doubt that you did it. If the prosecutor would have done his job, Zimmerman would be in prison right now for manslaughter, which has a lower standard of proof. Since he can't be retried for the same crime, he's off scott free.
the prosecution did the best they could with the evidence they had.
following the theme of your post, it never should have went to trial.
Stop getting off topic... this thread is about starting a national campaign of lawful, public following of unarmed citizens.
The very word "Follow" means you have chosen a person for an action. If I am going about my daily life and somone is following me specifically, I want to know why. Denpending on the reason..it may be illegal to follow someone. Protective orders a signed every day in America.
I dont need a law to ask him if he is following me and why. If his answer is creepy-ass, I dont need a law to handle the situation.
I have at my disposal a number of ways to handle the situation. But the following will cease.
As an older single female I would find it very very creepy if someone was following me, I'd be on the phone to the police and looking for a safe haven right away, I certainly would not turn to confront them.
The word "following" in this topic could easily be exchanged to "Stalking". Depending on the circumstances one could easily fear for their lives if being stalked.
The word "following" in this topic could easily be exchanged to "Stalking". Depending on the circumstances one could easily fear for their lives if being stalked.
No, it couldn't.
Quick - define stalking.
Being followed at a distance is not adequate for justified use of force.
Following a person is harassment. It suggests a threat to the person being followed- Threatening in any form is illegal - as is harassment. To utter a threat - is also illegal...all the laws are in place- follow the law - not the person.
It's nearly 11 at night, I'm off to bed, and I'm not going to spend a half hour explaining murder charges. Go to
wikipedia and look up "Degrees of Murder in the US." The higher the charge, the more you have to prove premeditation, malicious intent, etc. No one is disputing that Zimmerman killed Martin--that's a simple fact. The question was whether or not he intended to kill Martin, or if he was negligent. Since the evidence was so one sided because Martin couldn't speak out, they weren't able to convince the jury that Zimmerman intentionally killed Martin. The prosecution put all their eggs in that basket vs. building a case for manslaughter, where Zimmerman didn't plan on killing Martin, but his actions were negligent. They screwed up. The prosecution did a TERRIBLE job.
You don't know what you're talking about. 'INTENT' was NOT necessary to convict for murder 2 or manslaughter.
Corey, Bernie, Holder, Crump, and the rest of the persecution team did the best they could with a case brought to trial for political and social pressure reasons, not legal ones.
Now the qualifier...at a distance is added. Yes I believe most restraining/protective orders say within a +-1000 feet.
stalking is perpetual following.
And the term "following" implies you are maintaining some level of distance. Otherwise you'd be approaching the person. And not a single person has argued that GZ was following with no distance.
And no, stalking is not perpetual following. There's no more eloquent way to say this - that definition is flat out made up out of nowhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oleg Bach
Following a person is harassment. It suggests a threat to the person being followed- Threatening in any form is illegal - as is harassment. To utter a threat - is also illegal...all the laws are in place- follow the law - not the person.
Following someone down the street one time without uttering a threat is in no way harassment.
So what they are suggesting is perfectly legal. Stupid attempt to make a point (although no one can tell me what it is exactly), but legal.
George Zimmerman shot and killed a violent attacker, a jury of his peers found him not guilty of murder and he is still an innocent free man. Until a large braindead segment of our population comes to realize that we'll never get past this incident.
12% ?
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.
