So, Trayvon Martin. (Updated 9/10: From the duh and oops departments)

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 . . . 43 NEXT
 

This case has gotten so muddled that there's a hundred different stories on how the confrontation played out. The only things that I care about that can be confirmed is that Zimmerman followed an unarmed guy and ended up in a confrontation with said guy that ended up with him killing an unarmed guy.

Who threw punches first? Who was winning the fight? Doesn't matter. Even if it did there are a billion versions of it. Zimmerman was the cause of everything and is the bad guy in this case.

Awexsome:
This case has gotten so muddled that there's a hundred different stories on how the confrontation played out. The only things that I care about that can be confirmed is that Zimmerman followed an unarmed guy and ended up in a confrontation with said guy that ended up with him killing an unarmed guy.

Who threw punches first? Who was winning the fight? Doesn't matter. Even if it did there are a billion versions of it. Zimmerman was the cause of everything and is the bad guy in this case.

So, even if Zimmerman was telling the truth and Martin, without provication, threw the first punch and was bashing his head into the concrete you would still say that Zimmerman is the bad guy?

That is an extreme position. Aside from Blablahb I do not think anyone else on this topic holds that view. It is your opinion but I personally would like you to justify that.

farson135:

Awexsome:
This case has gotten so muddled that there's a hundred different stories on how the confrontation played out. The only things that I care about that can be confirmed is that Zimmerman followed an unarmed guy and ended up in a confrontation with said guy that ended up with him killing an unarmed guy.

Who threw punches first? Who was winning the fight? Doesn't matter. Even if it did there are a billion versions of it. Zimmerman was the cause of everything and is the bad guy in this case.

So, even if Zimmerman was telling the truth and Martin, without provication, threw the first punch and was bashing his head into the concrete you would still say that Zimmerman is the bad guy?

That is an extreme position. Aside from Blablahb I do not think anyone else on this topic holds that view. It is your opinion but I personally would like you to justify that.

There WAS provocation from Zimmerman.

George Zimmerman had NO business getting out of his car and pursuing Martin in the first place. None whatsoever.

Tyler Perry:

harmonic:

Tyler Perry:
everything you ever say

Dude, you are way too emotionally invested in this case, as are many people. Your mind is made up. No amount of indisputable evidence or innocent verdicts would change your stance.

Everyone arguing with Tyler Perry, realize that he's never, ever, ever going to give in. He just wants to win. He wants Zimmerman to fry. He wants the evil white man to pay. There is no reasoning with this person.

That's a complete lie, and you know it. At no point have I said anything you have claimed. You are lying.

My position on this case is clear. It is apparent to me that George Zimmerman behaved in a reckless manner that caused an unarmed, innocent person to die. I have never, once, said anything about the "evil white man" or anything you accuse me of.

You are full of shit.

If anyone can find anything that backs up Harmonic's notion of how I view this case, please repost it.

Still waiting for this, by the way. Nope, looks like Harmonic was dead fucking wrong about me.

Tyler Perry:

There WAS provocation from Zimmerman.

George Zimmerman had NO business getting out of his car and pursuing Martin in the first place. None whatsoever.

Simply getting out of a car is not provocation. If it was then 70% percent or so of the adult population of the US would be guilty of provocation every goddamn day.

Look at it from the perspective of some random guy. You are driving along looking at apartments. You happen to be following the same path as someone else. That person then starts running from you and you get out to see what is wrong. That person then attacks you.

BTW that is not just a story because that actually happened to me except that, one it was houses and not apartments and two he/she didn't attack me. I got out of my car and walked a little ways asking if everything was ok. I then got back into my car and drove off. Very similar situation and if you are right then I was provoking him/her and he/she could have attacked me legally.

Y'all do not seem to understand this basic fact. (I want you to read this carefully) People do things that are suspicious every single day. I see it because I have been trained to see it. As I told the last guy, if not for the shooting this entire incident (including Zimmerman getting out of the car) would be fairly typical. Just because you have an articulable suspicion does not make you suspicion reasonable. It is not reasonable to attack someone who is following you simply because they are following you.

farson135:

Tyler Perry:

There WAS provocation from Zimmerman.

George Zimmerman had NO business getting out of his car and pursuing Martin in the first place. None whatsoever.

Simply getting out of a car is not provocation. If it was then 70% percent or so of the adult population of the US would be guilty of provocation every goddamn day.

Look at it from the perspective of some random guy. You are driving along looking at apartments. You happen to be following the same path as someone else. That person then starts running from you and you get out to see what is wrong. That person then attacks you.

BTW that is not just a story because that actually happened to me except that, one it was houses and not apartments and two he/she didn't attack me. I got out of my car and walked a little ways asking if everything was ok. I then got back into my car and drove off. Very similar situation and if you are right then I was provoking him/her and he/she could have attacked me legally.

Y'all do not seem to understand this basic fact. (I want you to read this carefully) People do things that are suspicious every single day. I see it because I have been trained to see it. As I told the last guy, if not for the shooting this entire incident (including Zimmerman getting out of the car) would be fairly typical. Just because you have an articulable suspicion does not make you suspicion reasonable. It is not reasonable to attack someone who is following you simply because they are following you.

The notion that I was implying that simply getting out of the car is provocation is fucking stupid and you know it.

George Zimmerman is not a police officer and had no business chasing down a "suspicious individual." Period.

Tyler Perry:
The notion that I was implying that simply getting out of the car is provocation is fucking stupid and you know it.

You didn't imply you said it. YOU stated that Zimmerman getting out of the car and pursuing Martin was provocation. That is completely wrong without extenuating circumstances. Unless you are going to argue that I was provoking an innocent person when I got out of my car to ask if he/she needed help. Your point is completely wrong and it has no basis in reality.

What makes Zimmerman's actions provocative? To you his actions are provocative because of what happened later. To me there is nothing overly provocative about his actions. What happened later may color the story but it does not change the fact that in 99% of cases Zimmerman's actions would not have even been noteworthy. It is the LATER actions (assuming the earlier actions are recorded in full) that are important to how the story progressed.

farson135:

Tyler Perry:
The notion that I was implying that simply getting out of the car is provocation is fucking stupid and you know it.

You didn't imply you said it. YOU stated that Zimmerman getting out of the car and pursuing Martin was provocation. That is completely wrong without extenuating circumstances. Unless you are going to argue that I was provoking an innocent person when I got out of my car to ask if he/she needed help. Your point is completely wrong and it has no basis in reality.

What makes Zimmerman's actions provocative? To you his actions are provocative because of what happened later. To me there is nothing overly provocative about his actions. What happened later may color the story but it does not change the fact that in 99% of cases Zimmerman's actions would not have even been noteworthy. It is the LATER actions (assuming the earlier actions are recorded in full) that are important to how the story progressed.

Yes, I stated that Zimmerman getting out of the car and pursuing Martin was provocation. You made it sound like I said the simple act of exiting a vehicle was a threatening one.

What makes Zimmerman's actions provocative? You really needed to ask that? Of course they were. If I were in a strange neighborhood in the dark and someone were following me, even after I started running or briskly walking away from them, then yes, I for one would feel like my safety was in jeopardy.


I saw this, and it made me think of someone.
No not you Tyler Perry, you're not insane.

Anyway, I've come up with one or two predictions for the court case, but then again, I'm not a fortune teller so there's high probability I'm WAY off... I'll get them up later.

Tyler Perry:
Yes, I stated that Zimmerman getting out of the car and pursuing Martin was provocation. You made it sound like I said the simple act of exiting a vehicle was a threatening one.

No, you made it sound like it.

What makes Zimmerman's actions provocative? You really needed to ask that? Of course they were. If I were in a strange neighborhood in the dark and someone were following me, even after I started running or briskly walking away from them, then yes, I for one would feel like my safety was in jeopardy.

So you are stating that he/she would have been well within their rights to attack me because I had provoked them by getting out and following a little ways. THAT IS NOT HOW IT WORKS.

Once again you may have had an articulable suspicion but it would have been in no way reasonable. Simply following someone is not provocation in any way shape or form. Nor is it even the slightest bit unique. People follow each other incidentally all the time. I understand that you want to make Martin seem less guilty but the fact is that, unless there is some other evidence, Zimmerman did nothing significantly provocative at that point. No reasonable person would interpret Zimmerman's actions up to that point as obviously hostile. The only reason you are doing so now is because of what happened later.

For another example, if I were to take your interpretation into the daily world I would have killed someone a few days ago. I walking along at night and there was this car following me. Eventually someone got out, jogged over, and asked me how to get to Guadalupe Street. Just another daily event. In 99% of cases where something similar happens nothing of interest happened. In the normal course of events his actions would have been meaningless. That is why you are wrong. I would never teach my students what you are saying because it is ridiculous and would only lead to trouble. I tell my students to be prepared but realize that not everybody is out to get you. Your statement would only contradict that fact by turning a very innocent event (like asking for directions or asking if a person needs help) into a life threatening altercation.

BTW simply stating that his actions were provocative does not make them so. Show it.

farson135:
BTW simply stating that his actions were provocative does not make them so. Show it.

In 35 US states Zimmerman following Martin broke stalking laws, however in Florida the law requires 'repeated' (more than two) occasions before the legal criteria for stalking are satisfied.

However that is not the case for 'Harassment'.

Florida 784.048:

"Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.

"Course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.

Martin's phone call demonstrates his emotional distress, so under Florida law Zimmerman was 'harassing' Martin.

As Zimmerman was engaged in an illegal act, any further actions by Zimmerman towards Martin can be considered 'unlawful'.

As Martin was being 'harassed' by Zimmerman, Martin has 'reasonable belief' that his personal safety is in jeopardy and can invoke Florida's laws;

776.012:
Use of force in defense of person.
A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force.

TechNoFear:
Snip

One wonders if you are ever going to learn to keep your mouth shut when you have no idea what you are talking about.

In 35 US states Zimmerman following Martin broke stalking laws

Zimmerman's actions do not qualify as stalking under any known law. Since you have no proof of his intentions you cannot argue for intent, also he did it once against a somewhat random target, followed a short distance, and he was not willfully trying to do anything but report the guy (unless you have some proof that shows otherwise).

However that is not the case for 'Harassment'.

Florida 784.048:

"Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.

"Course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.

Martin's phone call demonstrates his emotional distress, so under Florida law Zimmerman was 'harassing' Martin.

So much emotional distress that, according to the girlfriends statement, instead of going home he decided to confront Zimmerman.

Under your definition a KKK member can claim harassment because a black guy walking down the street was causing emotional distress. It does not work that way. You have no proof that Zimmerman had any intention of causing emotional stress and no reasonable person would have suffered from his actions.

As Martin was being 'harassed' by Zimmerman, Martin has 'reasonable belief' that his personal safety is in jeopardy and can invoke Florida's laws;

776.012:
Use of force in defense of person.
A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force.

No reasonable person attacks someone simply for following them. You are wrong and you have no idea what you are talking about.

TechNoFear:

farson135:
BTW simply stating that his actions were provocative does not make them so. Show it.

In 35 US states Zimmerman following Martin broke stalking laws, however in Florida the law requires 'repeated' (more than two) occasions before the legal criteria for stalking are satisfied.

[CITATION NEEDED]

I am aware of no stalking laws which an encounter of less than 5 minutes with no verbal contact(Zimmerman had lost Martin and could no longer be considered following him before Martin, BY THE TESTIMONY OF HIS GIRLFIREND, confronted Zimmerman verbally) that would ever fall under stalking laws.

As Zimmerman was engaged in an illegal act

[CITATION NEEDED]

What illegal act? A civilian watching another person because they think they are acting suspicious is in now way, shape, or form illegal.

The second degree murder charge is what I find really interesting about this case. Manslaughter would be a far more likely to get a conviction with and wouldn't allow for absolute defenses, like the "Stand Your Ground" law, to boot. The prosecution may have very well gift wrapped this case to the defense with a second degree murder charge. Some might say purposely so.

Judging strictly by the evidence as it is presented currently I would be dumbfounded if any marginally competent lawyer would fail to get an acquittal for Mr Zimmerman. Hell, if this goes in front of the right judge it could very likely get dismissed before ever getting in front of a jury. However, there could very well be evidence that isn't publicly known and the state could have a solid case against Mr Zimmerman for all we know.

Personally I believe that charges were brought largely due to political pressure. I think that the second degree murder charges were brought forth for two reasons, neither being to convict Mr Zimmerman of second degree murder. First by bringing the most severe charges available against Mr Zimmerman it makes the prosecution look better to the people calling for justice. I feel if there wasn't such massive public scrutiny charges likely would not have come at all. However, with the amount of both political and public pressure the state was under they simply couldn't risk the backlash of electing not to file charges all together.

The second reason I believe they went with a murder versus manslaughter charge was to give the defense as easy a time as possible in securing an acquittal for Mr Zimmerman. As I stated above manslaughter would have practically been a slam dunk for the prosecution as the defense offered by the "Stand Your Ground" laws would have been off the table leaving Mr Zimmerman very few, if any, ways to defend against the charges. With second degree murder though a conviction on the charges is highly unlikely unless there is evidence we simply don't know about.

The bottom line is that unless the prosecution has an ace in the hole the public is unaware of it doesn't look like George Zimmerman's stay in jail will be a very long one.

It is amazing how many people were at the scene of the crime. First of all, I feel so sorry for both families. I am glad this is going to Court but I am glad Zimmerman's lawyers bailed! As you can see from their rhetoric about their former client, they weren't professional. I just hope that there is a "fair" trial and all evidence is brought to court (including drug tests hopefully done on Trayvon Martin and Zimmerman, and hospital records of Zimmerman's injuries supposedly done by Martin). Both of these men were not angels but deserve fair trials. I hope to God that the Black Panthers and Rev. Sharpton's of this world go to jail one day for putting bounties on people and the racial animosities that they cause. I am not talking about their rhetoric I am talking about their scare tactics and ensighting riots that got other people killed because of this case. Where is President Obama in all of this? He never nullifies the Black Panthers' abominations! This is another reason not to vote for Obama...he is not an honest man with the people of this country. He is bringing America down. He doesn't want to bring us together and we were doing pretty well before he got here trying to get rid of racism...he has brought it back many fold. How sad!

Carol Heckelmann:
It is amazing how many people were at the scene of the crime. First of all, I feel so sorry for both families. I am glad this is going to Court but I am glad Zimmerman's lawyers bailed! As you can see from their rhetoric about their former client, they weren't professional. I just hope that there is a "fair" trial and all evidence is brought to court (including drug tests hopefully done on Trayvon Martin and Zimmerman, and hospital records of Zimmerman's injuries supposedly done by Martin). Both of these men were not angels but deserve fair trials. I hope to God that the Black Panthers and Rev. Sharpton's of this world go to jail one day for putting bounties on people and the racial animosities that they cause. I am not talking about their rhetoric I am talking about their scare tactics and ensighting riots that got other people killed because of this case. Where is President Obama in all of this? He never nullifies the Black Panthers' abominations! This is another reason not to vote for Obama...he is not an honest man with the people of this country. He is bringing America down. He doesn't want to bring us together and we were doing pretty well before he got here trying to get rid of racism...he has brought it back many fold. How sad!

Why would Obama need to nullify Black Panther activity? How are they connected? Bill clinton didnt ever mention Neo Nazi behavior. I dont recall John Mccain making any attempts to address some of the negative behavior of the tea party movement. Why is Obama supposed to adress a bunch of black crazies... is it becuase hes black?

Furthermore,

farson135:

Tyler Perry:

There WAS provocation from Zimmerman.

George Zimmerman had NO business getting out of his car and pursuing Martin in the first place. None whatsoever.

Simply getting out of a car is not provocation. If it was then 70% percent or so of the adult population of the US would be guilty of provocation every goddamn day.

Look at it from the perspective of some random guy. You are driving along looking at apartments. You happen to be following the same path as someone else. That person then starts running from you and you get out to see what is wrong. That person then attacks you.

BTW that is not just a story because that actually happened to me except that, one it was houses and not apartments and two he/she didn't attack me. I got out of my car and walked a little ways asking if everything was ok. I then got back into my car and drove off. Very similar situation and if you are right then I was provoking him/her and he/she could have attacked me legally.

Y'all do not seem to understand this basic fact. (I want you to read this carefully) People do things that are suspicious every single day. I see it because I have been trained to see it. As I told the last guy, if not for the shooting this entire incident (including Zimmerman getting out of the car) would be fairly typical. Just because you have an articulable suspicion does not make you suspicion reasonable. It is not reasonable to attack someone who is following you simply because they are following you.

I dont see how you can excuse Zimmerman getting out of the car. Lets not forget what clearly happened. Zimmerman is watching Martin from his car. Martin gets nervous and runs away, as soon as he begins to run Zimmerman leaves his car to follow. Your behavior in that story if fairly abnormal, usually when someone begins running from me i dont pursue, furthermore you clearly articulated your intentions. Zimmerman followed Martin and then at best tried to keep an eye on him, unlike you, he clearly by his own words did not have positive intentions for Martin. His intention was to prevent Martin from committing a crime. From the outside looking in this could easily have been construed as a threat.

Bottom line, let us say that there was no ill will intended and that this was mostly an accident. That still could easily constitute manslaughter. Had Z not profiled Martin and followed him, this would not have happened. Man 1 does not require ill intent (which is arguably present in this case) it just requires that there was negligence on the part of the killer. I have on several occasions stated that manslaughter is the most likely scenario, I figure the Murder 2 charge is for show. We shall see, over chargning is exactly what allowed Casey Anthony to get off.

feeqmatic:
I dont see how you can excuse Zimmerman getting out of the car.

I don't excuse it as right I just dismiss it as irrelevant.

Your behavior in that story if fairly abnormal

No. It is typical human behavior that when someone runs you chase them.

usually when someone begins running from me i dont pursue

When is the last time someone ran from you? Probably not since the last time you were playing on a playground and guess what you probably chased them. We learn it from an early age and it keeps with us. The stupid guard chasing someone and leaving his post motif exists for a reason

furthermore you clearly articulated your intentions

My intentions after getting out of the car were unknown to the person. That is the point.

Zimmerman followed Martin and then at best tried to keep an eye on him, unlike you, he clearly by his own words did not have positive intentions for Martin. His intention was to prevent Martin from committing a crime. From the outside looking in this could easily have been construed as a threat.

What? I could have been doing the same thing when I got out of the car. Hell when I actually did say something the person could have thought I was lying. Zimmerman did nothing that would constitute an immediate thread to Martin.

BTW what about the other case I mentioned. That guy got out of the car and jogged over to me. Should I have considered him a threat? I don't know his intentions. Sure in all likelihood he is just trying to ask for directions but how do I know? So Zimmerman is driving around. He just got off of work and decided to check out the neighborhood because he might want to live there someday. He sees this guy in front of him who suddenly starts running away from him. He is curious and gets out of the car. Then he jogs over to see what is up. Then he walks back to his car and the guy starts talking to him then punches him. That is a fairly plausible scenario. It could have happened that way and guess what Martin would have been just as wrong. Here is the problem with you guys, y'all continue to think of this case in terms of what happened later. You need to cut out the later and look at the events as they pile up. No shooting occurred. In the events as they stood what possible reason would Martin have to believe his life was in significant enough danger to constitute a preemptive strike?

In my CHL class they used the example, you are at a ballpark, you walking back to your car and you see a man dragging a screaming child into a car. What do you do? Do you assume that the man is abducting the kid and draw OR do you assume that it is just a father trying to corral his kid? The answer is neither. You do not have enough information. Basic self defense says that if you do not have enough information to gage the situation either get the info or change the parameters. In Martins case the best thing to do is disengage and go home. There was no reason for him to stop and talk to him and he should have gone home. If that happens then he goes to sleep in his room that night.

In my mind the part that changes the parameters is Martin stopping or turning around. Zimmerman up to that point had been stupid but had done nothing overtly dangerous or threatening. What happened from there is open to debate but the fact is that THAT moment is the important one. Zimmerman getting out of his truck is irrelevant when compared to that moment when Martin decided to stop.

That still could easily constitute manslaughter.

You will hear no argument on that point.

Had Z not profiled Martin and followed him, this would not have happened.

STOP. When was it proven that Zimmerman profiled Martin?

BTW if someone had not instigated the fight this would have turned into random Neighborhood Watch case number 16,145,764.

farson135:
Zimmerman's actions do not qualify as stalking under any known law.

Prove it.

farson135:
Under your definition a KKK member can claim harassment because a black guy walking down the street was causing emotional distress.

No, please read my post more carefully.

Your 'black guy' has a legitimate purpose and so can not be harassing your 'KKK member'.

As Martin was legally allowed to walk to his home, Zimmerman had no legitimate purpose to follow Martin.

farson135:
You have no proof that Zimmerman had any intention of causing emotional stress and no reasonable person would have suffered from his actions.

Again, read my post.

'Intent' on Zimmerman's part is not required, Zimmerman CAUSING distress is enough to harass (and this distress is clearly demonstratable).

farson135:
No reasonable person attacks someone simply for following them. You are wrong and you have no idea what you are talking about.

But reasonable people follow someone home, calls the police for no reason, follows them when told not to by the police and ends up shooting an unarmed teenager?

Do you not see how ludicrous your opinion is?

Least I take the time to research my opinion and provide supporting evidence, you appear just keep spouting what ever comes into your head, irregardless of the facts.

farson135:
No. It is typical human behavior that when someone runs you chase them.

And chasing someone is harassment under Florida law, unless it is the 3rd or more incident, then it s stalking.

Either way it is an agressive act, bringing 776.012 into play.

How would you react if someone chased your child, sister, mother or wife to your front door on a rainy night?

farson135:
Zimmerman getting out of his truck is irrelevant when compared to that moment when Martin decided to stop.

So Zimmerman can follow Martin, chase him into a dark alley way and Martin has no right to react?

Why is Martin not allowed to use 776.012 against someone you admit was chasing him down a dark alley way?

TechNoFear:
Prove it.

I did.

Your 'black guy' has a legitimate purpose and so can not be harassing your 'KKK member'.

As Martin was legally allowed to walk to his home, Zimmerman had no legitimate purpose to follow Martin.

Except that Zimmerman did not know that he was walking home. In fact the Klan member had no idea that that black guy was not going to rob a store or whatever Klan members think blacks do in their spare time. Your definition is so broad as to be rendered meaningless. Find me a single solitary instance where harassment is taken as such a broad meaning as you have done.

BTW Martin has the right to walk home, Zimmerman has the right to sit in his car and drive around a little. As long as neither are disturbing the peace or committing any other crime then they are good. There is nothing illegal about either of their initial actions.

'Intent' on Zimmerman's part is not required, Zimmerman CAUSING distress is enough to harass (and this distress is clearly demonstratable).

Yes, intent is necessary. If you actually read the entire stalking law you would have seen that.

BTW it is causing SIGNIFICANT distress against a SPECIFIC person. In this case the target is non-specific (unless you can prove that Zimmerman when after Martin in particular) and the distress was in no way significant.

But reasonable people follow someone home, calls the police for no reason, follows them when told not to by the police and ends up shooting an unarmed teenager?

You are evading. Not surprising for you. After all you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Hell, you are so far out of your league it is not even funny. I do not even know why you bother to talk to me when you have nothing to say.

Do you not see how ludicrous your opinion is?

No reasonable person attacks someone simply for following them. That is fact. You want to deny it because you do not like me and my opinions. Try moving beyond your bias for once in your miserable life.

Least I take the time to research my opinion and provide supporting evidence, you appear just keep spouting what ever comes into your head, irregardless of the facts.

You just stated that Martin had the right to use deadly force on a person who simply followed him for a ways. That is not a logical, well researched opinion that is an idiotic opinion. It does not work that way.

TechNoFear:
And chasing someone is harassment under Florida law, unless it is the 3rd or more incident, then it s stalking.

No it isn't. Not by itself. If it was then every playground in the state would be filled with harassers. Hell, this morning I saw a guy chasing a girl down the street they were obviously a couple playing a game but I suppose in your world that guy was harassing her.

How would you react if someone chased your child, sister, mother or wife to your front door on a rainy night?

I would bring them inside and if the pursuit was continued I would call the police.

Either way it is an agressive act, bringing 776.012 into play.

So I am out running, I end of following some guy for a while, he draws and shoots me. In your world that is perfectly legal. In the real world we understand that you have to have a reasonable fear for your life. Following someone or running behind them does not constitute harassment or stalking. You are just trying to find anything you can shove in to make your bias work. Unfortunately for you the real world does not conform to your bias.

So Zimmerman can follow Martin, chase him into a dark alley way and Martin has no right to react?

Actually he has plenty of room to react. He can go home (which was not very far away mind you). He could call the police (after all the phone was in his hand). And on. However attacking someone just for following you is not ok.

Why is Martin not allowed to use 776.012 against someone you admit was chasing him down a dark alley way?

Because simply following someone is not grounds for the use of deadly force. Are you sure you are an LEO because this should not require explaining.

I'm just happy that he is being charged now so that we can have a trial and learn about all the evidence (especially forensic evidence) that may support or completely undermine Zimmerman's claims. It shouldn't have taken federal intervention to get this investigated in the first place.

farson135:
No. It is typical human behavior that when someone runs you chase them.

Why the fuck was he following him in the first place? Please answer that.

farson135:

Because simply following someone is not grounds for the use of deadly force. Are you sure you are an LEO because this should not require explaining.

He didn't "simply follow him." He chased him around in the dark. Stop being so fucking dishonest.

Your almost pathological desire to defend Zimmerman is disturbing.

Skeleon:
It shouldn't have taken federal intervention to get this investigated in the first place.

You realize that it takes time for evidence to be collected right? It took 44 days for them to collect evidence. That is a little slow but certainly not a crawl. It takes time to collect forensic evidence, gather testimonies, and on. You only get one chance to convict someone so a prosecutor will usually take the time to ensure they have a rock solid case going forward. If they build their case in a day and some evidence that the forensic investigator just noticed comes to light they could be in big trouble.

Too many people in this world expect justice to happen overnight. Unfortunately for them the only justice that works that way is vigilante justice.

farson135:
*snip*

You completely missed my point. I was not criticizing the prosecuters or the federal investigators. I was criticizing the behaviour of the local police force. If they hadn't messed up so enormously when Martin first got shot, this would never have turned into the shitstorm it became.

Skeleon:
You completely missed my point. I was not criticizing the prosecuters or the federal investigators. I was criticizing the behaviour of the local police force. If they hadn't messed up so enormously when Martin first got shot, this would never have turned into the shitstorm it became.

The police have nothing to do with whether or no a crime gets investigated or a person charged.

BTW this wouldn't have become a shitstorm if Martins family had not turned it into one.

Tyler Perry:
Why the fuck was he following him in the first place? Please answer that.

Because he was suspicious to Zimmerman. That would be my guess.

He didn't "simply follow him." He chased him around in the dark. Stop being so fucking dishonest.

I am being dishonest. Take a look at that scenario I came up with-

So Zimmerman is driving around. He just got off of work and decided to check out the neighborhood because he might want to live there someday. He sees this guy in front of him who suddenly starts running away from him. He is curious and gets out of the car. Then he jogs over to see what is up. Then he walks back to his car and the guy starts talking to him then punches him.

How would Martin not know that that was not the case? How would Martin or anyone else know his intentions based on his actions? That is the part where you fail. You only know his intentions because he told us so. In a real life scenario Martin would not have known his intentions. Hell, for all Martin knew he was just out reading the meter and by random coincidence he ran down the same area that Martin did. That fact that you have to include Zimmerman's intentions proves that you have no idea what you are talking about. YOU CANNOT KNOW ZIMMERMANS INTENTIONS BASED ON HIM JUST FOLLOWING YOU. THAT IS THE POINT. I do not understand what is so difficult about this. I know you want to make Zimmerman as culpable as possible but can you not look past your bias long enough to see what I am saying?

Your almost pathological desire to defend Zimmerman is disturbing.

Now who is being dishonest. I said him getting out of the car is stupid but it is irrelevant to the case. Your pathological need to attack anyone who thinks Martin royally fucked up is disturbing.

farson135:
The police have nothing to do with whether or no a crime gets investigated or a person charged.

They have everything to do with whether they let a guy go free despite very questionable circumstances, they had everything to do with drug- and alcohol testing Martin's corpse but not Zimmerman, they had everything to do with immediately proclaiming Zimmerman's story of self-defense so very believable. They fucked up and it took federal investigators to do what should've been done from day 1.

farson135:

Now who is being dishonest. I said him getting out of the car is stupid but it is irrelevant to the case.

How is it irrelevant? That's what directly led to Martin's death.

Skeleon:
They have everything to do with whether they let a guy go free despite very questionable circumstances, they had everything to do with drug- and alcohol testing Martin's corpse but not Zimmerman, they had everything to do with immediately proclaiming Zimmerman's story of self-defense so very believable. They fucked up and it took federal investigators to do what should've been done from day 1.

I see you are German or are at least in Germany. I suppose you would not understand this but in the US we have this little thing called the 4th Amendment. It requires (among other things) for probable cause before arresting a person. In other words evidence had to be gathered to charge Zimmerman because you can only hold a person 3 days without charge. It took 44 days to gather evidence and because the accused has a right to a speedy trial (ala the 6th Amendment) if you arrest a person before you are ready the defendant can call for a trail and you can screw yourself over because you were unprepared. I doubt Germanys laws are that different.

TheDarkEricDraven:
How is it irrelevant? That's what directly led to Martin's death.

No. In 99 cases out of 100 Zimmerman getting out of the car means nothing. If Martin just goes home instead of stopping and talking to Zimmerman he would be alive. THAT is the point that changes the entire dynamic. Up until that point everybody's intentions were mundane.

farson135:
*snip*

I notice you decided to only focus on the bit about Zimmerman going free immediately after having shot Martin.
That in itself is problematic enough considering how unclear everything was and still is, but I'm arguing the police screwed up on several fronts.
Hell, Zimmerman went into hiding and even cut off communications with his own lawyers for a while. In Germany, a suspect that is feared to flee, cover up evidence or similar is not simply let go immediately after admittedly shooting somebody. I'm sure the USA have some laws in that regard.
Without this media shitstorm, it's doubtful there would've even been a proper trial like the one that is starting now. The police chief in charge even had to step down for now because of the massive local oversights, rightly so.
Just let it go. Don't turn this into another back and forth arguing as if everything went just fine after Martin's death. I know you see this completely differently than me, but I for one am very happy to see the current development and we will never agree on any of this anyway. I just wanted to comment on the trial, I didn't want to get properly dragged back into this thread.

Skeleon:
I notice you decided to only focus on the bit about Zimmerman going free immediately after having shot Martin.
That in itself is problematic enough considering how unclear everything was and still is

No it is not. Unless you have clear proof that Zimmerman did anything wrong federal law states that you cannot hold them for more than 3 days.

In Germany, a suspect that is feared to flee, cover up evidence or similar is not simply let go immediately after admittedly shooting somebody. I'm sure the USA have some laws in that regard.

He didn't flee he went into hiding. He also turned himself in immediately after learning he was to be put under arrest. Hell, if I was him I would have gone into hiding as well.

Without this media shitstorm, it's doubtful there would've even been a proper trial like the one that is starting now.

Actually this media shitstorm means that he unlikely to get a proper trial. There is a reason why in high profile cases jurors are not allowed to watch the news.

Also, for the love of god do you think all the stress is in any way good for Zimmerman? Even if he goes free he has to move out of the state. Joe Horn had the same thing happen. He was acquitted but people were still after him so he had to leave. I doubt the ruling of the court will convince the New Black Panther Party to drop the hunt. This bullshit means that no matter what the ruling of the court is Zimmerman is screwed. Plus you have the fact that this national coverage gave a platform for Spike Lee to post "Zimmerman's" address (turned out it was some random old couple) and they had to move to get away. People are getting hurt because of this idiocy.

The police chief in charge even had to step down for now because of the massive local oversights, rightly so.

No, he stepped down because they needed a scapegoat for what was happening.

I just wanted to comment on the trial, I didn't want to get properly dragged back into this thread.

Then don't answer. You made a big mistake and I called you for it. If you do not want to talk then don't.

farson135:
Also, for the love of god do you think all the stress is in any way good for Zimmerman?

No, but I think it's a good way to get a trial that would otherwise not have come about because of systemic failures. Side-effects suck.

No, he stepped down because they needed a scapegoat for what was happening.

Yes, I know that's how you see it. But I don't since I think there was a massive screw-up on the local level. I think this is a completely justified repercussion, although I'd like to see more investigation of the police officers on the lower levels, actually. But you think this is just scapegoating anyway, so what's the point of arguing?

Then don't answer. You made a big mistake and I called you for it. If you do not want to talk then don't.

Yeah, and I'll keep saying that it shouldn't have required federal intervention to get a proper investigation going in the first place. It didn't have to go this far and down this route if things had been different during the early development.
I've observed this thread and even taken part in it long enough to know that arguing on this point won't lead anywhere. But I won't not comment on it, either. You're right to a degree, though: I won't talk in the sense that I won't argue on it further.

Skeleon:
No, but I think it's a good way to get a trial that would otherwise not have come about because of systemic failures. Side-effects suck.

Do you have any proof whatsoever that the trial would not have happened if not for federal intervention? Even after the Feds said they were getting involved it took a while for charges to be brought. Maybe they needed those 44 days to collect evidence. I have already proven that they could not hold him so obviously they needed more evidence.

Yes, I know that's how you see it. But I don't since I think there was a massive screw-up on the local level. I think this is a completely justified repercussion, although I'd like to see more investigation of the police officers on the lower levels, actually. But you think this is just scapegoating anyway, so what's the point of arguing?

Let me ask you something, what exactly are you so pissed about? Because the media has lied on several occasions about what the police did and didn't do. I was even fooled into thinking that they violated some rules that they didn't. The Chief stepped down because people were pissed off but then again people were pissed off about things they actually didn't do. Like it was reported that the police didn't even cordon off the crime scene which is a lie because they did. And on.

Yeah, and I'll keep saying that it shouldn't have required federal intervention to get a proper investigation going in the first place. It didn't have to go this far and down this route if things had been different during the early development.

Once again do you have any proof that the Feds getting involved was even necessary? As I said they could hold Zimmerman indefinably without charging him and charging him without evidence is dangerous and illegal.

farson135:

Once again do you have any proof that the Feds getting involved was even necessary?

Interjecting there; I don't know how the chain of law enforcement works there, but the impression I got was that the Feds do not get involved at all if it is not necessary to get involved?

farson135:
As I said they could hold Zimmerman indefinably without charging him and charging him without evidence is dangerous and illegal.

Eh, they could just revoke his citizenship and that would no longer be a "legal" problem.

/drooling sarcasm

Vegosiux:

farson135:

Once again do you have any proof that the Feds getting involved was even necessary?

Interjecting there; I don't know how the chain of law enforcement works there, but the impression I got was that the Feds do not get involved at all if it is not necessary to get involved?

For the most part no, murder and self defense are not breaking federal crimes but entirely state crimes that is tried in state court. However, in high profile cases (I.E. cases with a lot of media attention) the Feds do lend "investigation assistance" for mostly PR reasons.

farson135:
As I said they could hold Zimmerman indefinably without charging him and charging him without evidence is dangerous and illegal.

Eh, they could just revoke his citizenship and that would no longer be a "legal" problem.

/drooling sarcasm[/quote]

Or they could declare him a terrorist and hold him forever.

/not sarcasm

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 . . . 43 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked