The 2 representatives who sponsored "The Stand Your Ground Law" have openly and publicly stated that Mister George Zimmerman does not qualify under the statutes of this law.
Dennis Baxley, who sponsored the bill in 2005, the law was “designed to protect citizens by giving them the right to ‘meet force with force,” not allow someone to pursue another person, confront them, and kill them.
Peaden made it clear he feels Zimmerman doesn’t qualify for the law,
http://www.clutchmagonline.com/2012/03/ … -arrested/
It would appear that the trial is focusing on the confrontation between Georgia Zimmerman and teenager Trayvon Martin and from where I sit they are ignoring serious questions leading up to this confrontation, such as every accusation Mister Zimmerman made about this teenager to the police was Wrong! Since Mister Zimmerman was wrong about the assertions made regarding Trayvon Martin what reason did he have to leave his vehicle?? It is obvious at this point Mister Zimmerman is chasing down a kid who has Done Nothing Wrong.
Question: If you go looking for trouble and find it do you still qualify for the "Stand Your Ground Law?"
What assertions did he make? That Martin appeared "suspicious" to Zimmerman? Pretty hard to refute that.
That Martin was black? Pretty hard to refute that one, too.
That cops had appeared too late to catch other "suspicious" people? That appears true as well.
So what assertions did Zimmerman make that were wrong, and that he should have reasonable know were wrong?
Zimmerman... Looking at all the houses.
[ what federal offense, what crime of any is this?]
Zimmerman... This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around looking about.
*Having done nothing how does one look like they're up to no good?
*Once again walking around in the rain-when did this become a crime? Who set up what guidelines as to how people should behave in the rain?
Zimmerman...Something’s wrong with him. Yep, he’s coming to check me out.
He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is
"something' s wrong with him"-how on earth can he make this determination not ever met this kid are seen him do anything wrong?
"He's got something in his hands"-Even though he couldn't recognize what he had in his hand where does he get the determination that it was worth mentioning to the police?
Speculating that someone is suspicious isn't grounds for citizens to act on as a vigilante. I can suspect my neighbor across the street is an alien does my suspicion give me the right to go over to their house and shoot them?
I think we can all agree that Zimmerman had Paul Blart Syndrome.
That makes him annoying as hell and socially inept.
However that doesn't make him guilty of murder.
I think he likely is, but not for being a wanna be Clint Eastwood.
Certainly we all have our opinions but the actions of Mister Zimmerman that night at least from my point of view illustrates to me that he was bound and determined to make this kid one of the perpetrators he has been looking for and that bears out in the statement he made when he said "A.. Hole always get away." Listening to Zimmerman's 911 call indicated that this kid had done nothing wrong for Zimmerman to be focusing on him.
If you went to their home, you would be trespassing. You could follow them if they are in public. Hey, you can even shoot video of them while walking down the street. If they turn around and attack you while you are following them, you can defend yourself. Although you should attempt to flee first, if unable, and you feel your life is in danger, you have every right to self protection.
I wonder why celebrities are always charged with a crime after striking a paparazzi?
May be following someone even in public may be different in certain areas but for the many programs like cops I generally hear the office to tell the people not to follow the suspect.
I believe celebrities are being charged because they present themselves as the aggressor in these attacks.
Let's take this example: a stranger bumps into you and when you step away from the stranger you noticed your while it is missing from your back pocket so you begin following this stranger. You catch up with the stranger an altercation ensues and someone is seriously injured. Once the police arrives they discover that you simply dropped your wallet at the restaurant you were leaving.
Celebrities are charged with assault because they wish to have the paparazzi stop following them. My point is, it is not illegal to follow a person. The person could flee or call authorities, but turning around and assaulting the person following them opens up a whole new scenario.
Sorry - I see not one assertion from Zimmerman that was wrong. Martin WAS walking in the rain. He WAS looking at houses (I do the same thing). Martin DID have something in his hand. He WAS suspicious as a stranger walking on private property. A young male, unknown, on private property, wandering around in the rain casing houses is almost the definition of "suspicious".
So again, which assertion was wrong? From your post, "Since Mister Zimmerman was wrong about the assertions made regarding Trayvon Martin..." but I'm darned if can see any assertion that wasn't 100% correct.
His conclusions were seriously flawed, and the actions based on those conclusions worse, but I just don't see any wrong assertions.
We can't just kill people because of an appearance. If we could, millions of people would be dead on the streets of America tomorrow morning. That is the point they seem to be overlooking.
That is indeed the point that will be brought out in the trial. Or course, the defense claims that Martin was killed because he attacked Zimmerman, broke his nose, knocked him to the ground and slammed his head onto the concrete. Neither you nor I know who started the physical fight - that's why we have a trial.
That, however, has nothing to do with the claim that Zimmerman made wrong assertions about Martin. He either did or he didn't - for myself everything listed in the post about what Zimmerman told the operator are, as far as I know, true.
We all have been in fights. You win some, you lose some. But killing someone with a gun is a crime, I think.
Some will agree, some won't. Personally, if someone attacks me and I'm armed I will use it. I see no reason to risk serious injury to myself to prevent injury or death to an attacker.
I hope no one attacks you. If I had your philosophy, I would have left a trail of bodies behind me.
Killing someone who is slamming your head against a concrete sidewalk is defending your life. When the person tells you you are going to die tonight (As Zimmerman says Martin did) then you are totally justified in using deadly force.
Making the threat and having the present ability to carry out that threat is well within the parameters of self defense.
And let's just set aside that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and beating the hell out of him.
We still don't know if Treyvon Martin even did that. How did he end up dead on his stomach in the middle of a lawn if he was shot while he was fighting on concrete?
Really? You don't understand how he wound up on the grass that borders both sides of a two-foot wide walkway?
You've never seen anyone die from a gunshot have you? I've seen a person shot 7 times with a .45 ACP walk to an ambulance. You find it inconceivable that Martin got up after being shot and stumbled a few feet do you? Amazing.
I spent 18 years in Law Enforcement and 6 years in the USMC. And I am astounded at the assumptions people make about these kinds of things, put them out as indisputable fact, when they have obviously no clue about any of it.
Yes. An unarmed teenager bringing home snacks for himself and his brother would logically go out of his way to assault an armed white guy twice his size. Clearly this makes perfect sense. Clearly.
I mean, why should we ever doubt the word of a white guy?
Well, certainly better than going after an Hispanic guy!
Which is an interesting point...
When did Zimmerman magically become white during all this fiasco?
The day it happened, when word went out over the net that Zimmerman left his house for the sole purpose of finding and killing a black kid. Racists the world over, whether black, white, brown or any other color, are not noted for particularly factual statements, just emotional ones.
Does that happen every time someone of hispanic origin shoots a black person? Do they suddenly turn white? Cause I didn't think that was how it worked.
Yeah, I think so. An automatic change from brown (or yellow or red or whatever except black) to white. Happens as soon as word hits the 'net, and is known to really shock Mama if she's watching!
I just assumed he just had a really dark tan.
Nope. As soon as all the racists declared it was a racist plot to murder blacks it also came out that he is at least half Hispanic. That and that he "tutors" lots of kids, including black ones, in various sports and games.
Doesn't stop the racist comments. of course...
I agree on this, even though my general impression of Zimmerman is he's guilty.
I don't think there's any great racist conspiracy here... except by the people who claim there's a racist conspiracy.... which is racist in itself.
That's kind of where I stand. Seems like Zimmerman should be guilty of something, but I'm not lawyer enough to know guilty of what. Nor do I have enough information to tell if I WAS a lawyer.
And the racism angle is what my sarcastic posts have been meant to indicate; the only racism is shown by the people claiming it's there. Certainly the killing was from a racist attitude or intent.
You know, I'm pretty sensitive to racism... but apparently not as sensitive as some. Yeah, I see it. It happens... but it's not a primary factor in a lot of things that people seem to think it is.
I am far more willing to accept DBaggery as a motivating force. I know far more DBs then I do racists. In this case I believe that DBaggery set the scene. I'm just not sure how culpable the DB in question is for things going terribly, terribly awry.
How would Martin have known he was armed? It's called a CONCEALED carry permit. And further to same it was very cold and raining that night and Zimmerman was wearing a heavy jacket. So tell me again how Martin knew he was armed, I will be fascinated to hear how he had X-ray vision or some new form of Google glasses.
I love how people just make up stuff, assume knowledge, and flat out lie just to try to make Zimmerman the bad guy and po, innocent little Martin the "victim".
The bias and just making up "facts" is unbelievable.
PS- Martin was 6' and 180 lbs. Zimmerman is about 5'-9" and at the time was around 160 or so. He has gained a lot of weight since the incident and looks nothing like he did the night i happened.
Actually, the guy who said he saw Treyvon attack Zimmerman now says he didn't see it happen . I haven't been following too closely, maybe they found someone else who saw it?
That's interesting. This incident involving Mister Zimmerman appears to be taxing on a number of levels. Does anyone remember the black guy who was supporting Mister Zimmerman as being Mister Zimmerman's close friend? After he was grilled by one of the major news networks they discovered he barely knew Mister Zimmerman at all.
In the past I've heard police officer say they protect their own I've often wondered to what extent would they protect their own. I have heard of police officers planning guns on innocent victims while their partner keeps their secret. .
I'm curious - what does cops protecting each other have to do with this case? Is it just more emotional flag waving to draw attention away from facts, or are you now trying to insinuate that the cops, tired of Zimmermans constant calling in of complaints, are protecting him somehow as one of their own?
Since the police had to go back and follow the procedure they should have followed when they came across this crime and ignoring the advice of the authorized police investigator to not accept the claims made by Mister Zimmerman then please note I am not insinuating I am stating, there appears to be some sort of favoritism between Mister Zimmerman and the police department, plus when these procedures were presented to other police authorities outside of that state many of them found these procedures pertaining to Mister Zimmerman's arrest by that Police Department as reprehensible.
Reprehensible, probably - we know (at least I think we know) Z was taken in and questioned then set free, but we absolutely do NOT know that the case was dropped or closed at that point. Just that the cops didn't make public knowledge of everything they learned at every opportunity - common and necessary practice when investigating a potential crime - it is not the cops responsibility to judge before a trial OR to make public all knowledge they gather.
Protecting a man they were tired of hearing from, probably not. Favoritism of a man they were tired of hearing from, probably not.
You don't have a clue as to how police work is done.
As far as I've seen there is exactly one witness to the alleged attack by Martin: George himself. Although eyewitness reports are notoriously inaccurate, it's still something that's going to make this trial extremely difficult.
absolutely correct-we cannot base our actions on appearance
If you can't see these wrong assertions and all I can say is you never will.
It might help, though, if you could provide even two examples of assertions that Z made and that were wrong (you do indicate that he was wrong in more than once). Certainly none of those you listed were wrong - Z WAS suspicious, which is the assertion he made, after all.
Or do you claim to have read his mind and found that he was NOT suspicious of Martin? Or that it was NOT raining? Or that Martin did NOT have something in his hands? Which assertion was wrong?
It seems you are blind to what I'm saying. Why don't you try this-name one illegal thing that Trayvon Martin did during the time Mister Zimmerman was in his vehicle! Being suspicious is merely someone's interpretation of a situation or a person. Suspicion is not an illegal action.
Somehow we're not communicating.
What Martin did or didn't do has nothing to do with what Z told that dispatcher, unless he lied. You claim he lied; that "Since Mister Zimmerman was wrong about the assertions made regarding Trayvon Martin..." but are unable to show even one lie.
That Z made incorrect deductions from his observations (observations and suspicions he reported to the dispatcher) doesn't mean he lied. It doesn't mean that his assertions to the dispatcher were wrong. It means that his deductions and conclusions of those assertions were wrong.
You don't find anything suspicious about a young male stranger meandering throughout private property in the rain, at night, looking at all the homes he passes, suspicious. Zimmerman did (and so would I for that matter), but you cannot claim that he did not have suspicions. And that was his assertion; that Martins activity was suspicious to Zimmerman. An assertion that was 100% correct, regardless of whether Martin was doing anything wrong or illegal; that Martin was suspicious to Zimmerman remains truthful and correct.
You are correct-We Are Not Communicating. Based on his communication to the dispatcher Mister Zimmerman made every effort as far as I can see to vilify a stranger who and Not Even You CAN'T Point out One Single Illegal Action That This Kid Took! Now you can flower up a lie all you want to but a lie is still a lie-one can say as it has been said in the past I don't have anything against black people, I just don't want them to marrying into my race.
You keep using the term suspicion or suspicious as if they have some validity to them-you know we could be playing cards and I could be suspicious of you cheating now according to your thinking that is something I need to act on.
A last try and I'll give up.
As far as I can see from anything Z said, he did not try to "vilify" M nearly to the point you yourself are trying to vilify Zimmerman. Your comment that Z made incorrect "assertions" is the point of everything I've said here; you have totally failed to find one "assertion" that was false. Instead you now want to talk about guilt while assigning evil motive to those assertions (like it was raining, Martin had something in his hand or was looking at the houses) all while I continue to speak of the assertions made by Zimmerman.
So no, we aren't communicating. You're interested in insinuating Zimmerman is guilty of murder, I'm interested in your claim that the words he spoke to the dispatcher were false. You certainly can't prove the guilt, but you might be able to give examples of the false assertions.
There is a problem in this thread and this issue as a whole.
There are two separate arguments getting mixed up Argument #1 was what Zimmerman did moral #2 Was what Zimmerman did legal?
Legally I would argue we don't yet have the facts to know, the trial will sort that out.
Morally I would argue that what Zimmerman did was wrong, he put a teen in a tough situation, no one should be following minors around especially not based on their appearance (whether you believe that was based on his race or just his clothing) as a result of him following a completely innocent minor an incident which we don't yet fully understand occurred and that innocent unarmed teen was killed by an armed man.
If Zimmerman had simply acted like a normal human being and just called the cops with a description, or just left it alone then a young man would still be alive and a family would be whole. Instead he decided to play cop without the necessary expertise or competence and killed someone who did not need to die.
Just a quick note here. Zimmerman isn't going for the Stand Your Ground defense. He's going for Self Defense. Two separate things and two separate types of trials. He waived his right to the SYG trial early on.
To date - it doesn't appear as though the Prosecution has much of a case. I have a strong feeling that Zimmerman will walk. Maybe he is or isn't guilty of murder, but I don't think the State is proving its case.
If you like and support Mister George Zimmerman then by all means do so. I am comfortable with the position I have taken and I hope you are comfortable with the one you have chosen.
I have grown tired of this bantering and it is obvious nothing I say is going to change your views or perspectives so there is no point in continuing this beating of a dead horse.
I am indeed comfortable with the stance I've taken. Neutral until the trial is over.
Hopefully you are as comfortable with yours - guilty on no evidence - as I am.
So you are comfortable with your assumptions based on facts not in evidence?
It's pretty obvious from your exchange with wilderness that you simply are trying to obfuscate now that he has blown very large holes in your narrative that is almost devoid of any actual facts pertaining to the case at hand. That's why you will not give any example of what you mean, as, well, you can't. You are simply putting your spin and your assumptions on the case to make it fit your preferred narrative.
A narrative you have shown you cannot and will not attempt to back up with any known facts of what really happened.
I'll say this one thing to you because if you claim you can't see any examples having read the post that I have provided then you clearly are in the same boat as wilderness.
There are some people in this world who are not interested in understanding just simply arguing and frankly I don't have time For those kinds of people.
I propose the same question to you that I propose to wilderness-Give One Example of That Kid Doing Anything in Legal While He Was Being Profiled by Mister George Zimmerman.
Attacked Zimmerman, broke his nose and pounded his head against a sidewalk, how's that for illegal?
Well tell me Superkev when one is fighting for their life against some stranger What Would You Do?
How was he fighting for his life when he was the aggressor and had the upper hand?
What would YOU do if someone was cracking YOUR head in to the sidewalk and you were starting to lose conciseness? Exactly.
How do we know he actually did that? The person who said he saw that happen now says he didn't.
So I guess GZ busted his own nose and banged the back of his head against the sidewalk by himself then huh?
Sounds like the eyewitness confirms it to me:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06 … hrown?lite
Your observation is correct in that it is possible for people to injure themselves or further injure themselves in an effort to make themselves look as if they are the victim. There have been court cases where the accused have cut themselves, semi-poison themselves even shot themselves all in an effort to avoid prosecution.
Happens nearly every day, doesn't it? Somebody breaks their own nose (pistol whip himself, maybe?) and scrapes their own head on concrete until it bleeds all over.
Whereas a younger, larger, scared man would never attack some older, smaller and weaker looking person.
Good catch! It makes a great first approximation as to what really happened that night.
Again, you make a whole lot of assumptions not based on one scrap of evidence.
You are just going to twist and turn and make up what ever scenario you need to in order to make the outcome, in your mind, what you wish it to be, regardless of the facts in evidence.
GZ's version of events is backed up by the physical evidence, nothing you continue to postulate and contrive is. You have in your head how it was and how it went down, and no amount of facts are going to sway you from your desired outcome.
What matters to you is what you want reality to be, not reality itself.
Lincoln said "If a man won't agree that two plus two equals four, then you'll never win the argument because facts don't matter"
You are that man.
Well, you know, we don't get to hear what Trayvon Martin perceived or suspected now, do we? We get to hear Mr. Zimmerman's side because he is still alive. I've been followed at dusk and it's damned scary. Zimmerman thought it was "suspicious" that Trayvon Martin was out walking at night in the rain. Don't you think it likely that Martin thought it was "suspicious" that Zimmerman was not only out walking at night in the rain but following him for no discernible reason? Not just suspicious, but scary?
Even if every word of Zimmerman's story is true and Martin attacked first, I think Zimmerman was a stupid man whose stupid actions resulted in the unnecessary death of a young man. If Martin attacked first, it was probably because he felt threatened. Wouldn't you?
So he attacked instead of walked away the way you say Zimmerman should have?
and there's where i am.
No racism necessary... just Paul Blart vs. scared kid. Whatever happened happened out of that scenario.
So who is responsible for that scenario? Oh... yeah.
Since we're all banting about theories, here's mine: (some artistic license)
Zimmerman was having an inferiority complex day. He decided to play Barney Fife to make himself feel better about his male inadequacies. He grabbed his excessively dangerous phallic symbol to make himself feel better about his height and so he could not get his ass beat by those who threatened to beat his ass for playing Barney Fife.
Zimmerman saw Martin walking around and presumed him to be a dangerous felon just waiting to kill someone, so he went into full paranoid no-authority having but need to pretend he does mode and called the cop. He said some things to make himself feel important and convinced himself that he was about to be a hero.
He decided to switch roles from Barney Fife to Spy Vs. Spy.
Martin, being a perfectly normal adolescent male, get's tired of Spy Vs. Spy following him for no good reason whatsoever and decides to confront Zimmerman.
Zimmerman runs his mouth (Because he's got a gun and is feeling cocky about his chances to do so without being punched in his face and ran home like the asshat he is)
Martin punches him in the mouth. Such things happen when asshats run their mouths to adolescent males. Visit a high-school. Any high school. Or simply spend some time around an adolescent male.
Zimmerman, who very much fears getting his ass kicked, finds himself in that exact situation. He's scared and wants to run away... yet he can't because such opportunities don't often present themselves when one is getting the crap beat out of them.
So he pulls the gun, thinking it will turn the tide. At that point he 1. Fires it because he is a pansy. 2. Means to show it just to run away and fires it accidentally. or 3. Martin laughs and continues to beat Zimmerman's ass, so he fires in in fear that Martin is actually going to kill him.
I can't wrap my mind around how any of those scenarios.. or really ANY scenario put forth could not have been prevented by Zimmerman NOT being an asshat. So yeah, the fault lies in his hands. To what extent? Not sure.
So Martin attacked him and he defended himself.
If you go by the stalking someone until they punch you in the mouth then shooting them for it is self-defense theory.
So, regardless you feel that TM was justified in attacking GZ?
Your scenario above shows TM as the aggressor, simply not liking someones proximity to you does not justify an assault and battery.....does it?
If someone is following me on a dark and rainy night then a gun is likely the best bet for them too.
And yes, I would feel completely justified in confronting them. Completely.
Being followed DOES constitute an fear for one's safety.
If someone was following you what would you do? Would you run or confront?
That's about where I stand as well, right up until the gun is pulled. Not sure about training requirements in Florida, but for the moment will give Z the benefit of the doubt; when the gun is pulled he intends to shoot. He doesn't pull it to scare M - he has been damaged enough and is scared enough to intend to pull the trigger.
I do not give credit to M to have the gun pulled and only then break Z's nose and smash his head. That was done before the gun appeared.
And could be totally wrong on both counts, but that's my tentative scenario. And just like you, it could have been prevented by Z. Or even by M - there is little doubt that he could have run away from Z. Fear, testosterone and anger kept them both at it until one was killed.
Yep. An unfortunate situation that escalated until someone died.
Yet, Martin got the death penalty for his part. Probably fair that Zimmerman at least do some time for his.
At worst, both men were aggressors. At best, both were defending themselves. Either way, Martin already got his punishment for his part in this cluster... Zimmerman needs his.
Can't go that far. Zimmerman probably does not deserve the same "punishment" that Martin got.
If, as you say, both were defending themselves Zimmerman should probably not be punished at all (plus I view jail as more "corrective training" than punishment). Somewhere in all that mess we'll find that one was more aggressor, one more defender. And that the balance probably shifted during the altercation to reverse proportions.
Zimmermans "punishment" should depend on both the original and the final balance between the two. What the law says is, of course, something else entirely. I'm glad I'm not on that jury - looks to me that they're going to be asked to make some very judgmental calls without having sufficient evidence to back it up. I almost predict a hung jury (from evidence I've seen - the trial could bring out a lot more).
See legally, in most cases, the person who creates a dangerous environment is the person who is responsible for the result.
In this case, that was clearly Zimmerman.
Everything that happened stemmed from his actions in following Martin.
The question is would a reasonable person feel threatened by being followed? I would.
You can't really claim self-defense when you created the environment of fear that caused someone else to attack in self-defense.
And yet...Zimmerman has a right to drive around, he has a right to walk around, and he has a duty (through neighborhood watch) to report suspicious activity. Indeed, we all have some of that duty - it is a sorry neighbor that won't call the cops when they see someone breaking into a neighbors home.
Sometimes the creation of that environment is not intended and sometimes it is even reasonable. Cops, for instance, create an environment of fear for petty thieves just by being seen; exactly what we want them to do. Same for neighborhood watch personnel, for that matter.
So I don't see it as that simple. Add in that we don't know where Zimmerman was headed, we don't know where Martin was headed ("home" or following Zimmerman?) or who even spoke the first word. Or even if there WAS a word spoken!
I'd hate to think that I could be indicted for murder because I walked down the street and that scared someone - I've been accosted for walking the sidewalk less than a block from my home because it "scared my womenfolk" (quoting the man that demanded to know who I was and where I lived) to see a man walking on the sidewalk. That's utterly ridiculous but, taken just a little bit further, is what you seem to be suggesting.
I think in just about every version, it is clear that Zimmerman was obvious enough about it that it WAS noticeable.
He admits to following him.
It is reasonable to assume that Martin noticed it and responded to it. As Zimmerman actually admits to it, the mistaken identity argument isn't really applicable.
In addition, the neighborhood watch isn't really an equivalent to a police department. They have no authority to create an environment of fear. No were they acting as a coherent unit.
Zimmerman was acting independently. He wasn't just walking, his movement had a purpose.
His actions were intentional even if the effect was unintentional. (Kinda like the random heart attack during a convenience store robbery... )
So, did his intentional actions (following Martin) amount to "Any threat or physical action, which knowingly places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury." (menacing)
Obviously, the actions could place a person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.
Well then we have to examine the knowingly part. The standard for that has always been basically "would a reasonable person assume that his actions could lead to a certain result" I would assume that yes, most reasonable people would assume that following someone could lead to them being in fear, even imminent fear, of serious bodily injury.
Now, it doesn't specify that the fear must be intended, just that the perpetrator must know his actions could produce fear.
Again (as always in this case) yes and no.
I'm having trouble picturing just what Zimmerman OR Martin did. Did Zimmerman get out of his car a block away and walk down the sidewalk behind Martin? Ahead of him, walking toward Martin? Did he turn around and head back to the car? Did he follow Martin for several blocks in the car first?
Did Martin make a turn, with Zimmerman making the same one? Did Martin double back and accost Zimmerman?
What or who actually brought the two within striking distance of each other? Martin was afraid (phone call) - why didn't he run away? Or did he try to and couldn't run fast enough? How far was it to his home?
All of those make a difference.
Neighborhood watch aren't cops, but "creating an environment of fear"? If you don't allow them to follow because of that environment then they're worthless and should be disbanded nationwide.
Nor is it reasonable to never watch a strange young person wandering around at night and in the rain on private property. We SHOULD be watching them, particularly if the neighborhood has already been vandalized and robbed several times.
The reason I've formed the opinion I have is the fact that Martin DID confront him. Therefore, in my opinion, whatever Zimmerman did was obviously blatant enough to draw Martin's attention. I mean I really don't see a scenario where Martin just coincidentally walks up to the very person who has just called the police on him and is "keeping an eye on him" and asks him if he has a problem.
To me that tends to say that WHATEVER Zimmerman was doing was obvious enough to cause Martin to be aware of it. Obviously Martin felt some emotion because of Zimmerman's actions. It's not too unreasonable, under the circumstances, to assume it would be fear.
I never said that neighborhood watches created an environment of fear, just that they don't have the right to do so. In this case, it wasn't the neighborhood watch that did it, it was Zimmerman. Zimmerman was behaving in a way that is not necessarily representative of how neighborhood watches are supposed to work.
There's a difference between watching and reporting and intervening. I don't believe that any rational neighborhood watch suggests actively pursuing those who look suspicious. That's vigilantism... or at least toy cop syndrome.
Disagree to some limited extent. Martin was afraid and confronted Zimmerman. OK. Why was he afraid? Because Zimmerman was walking the sidewalk 2 blocks behind him?
If so, he must have had some other reason for the fear - perhaps his past experience with cops and/or the watch program, and the suspicions Zimmerman had were more than justified.
Because Zimmerman was closing the gap down to a few yards? If so that fear is more than justified, although a physical attack is not.
You say Z was behaving a way that is not representative of how watches are to work, but we don't really know that outside of getting out of his car. Had he not had a car at all, would walking along far behind have been reasonable? I know that if I'm following someone at night, I'll cross the street rather than overtake, just to prevent that kind of scenario. Did Z do that and Martin followed him? Tentatively, I'll say probably not, but that's all it is - a tentative guess.
Absolutely agree, though, that Zimmerman had the play cop syndrome. He wanted to be a cop (and tried to), but the watch was all he could manage. So he made it into much more than it ever should be.
I just read that in testimony the girl who was on the phone with TM said that he stated that he was going to teach "him a lesson". Referring to GZ.
Also on the 911 tapes GZ says that he lost sight of TM. So where is the imminent threat that he was supposedly so in fear of?
The last thing on the phone call according to testimony is Zimmerman asking "what are you doing" and Martin replying "why are you following me?" then the "altercation" started obviously he had neither lost him and any teen being followed by a man in his 40s has good reason to be afraid.
According to the witnesses and the 911 call Martin ran and Zimmerman followed him.
Zimmerman: "he's running"
http://www.examiner.com/article/george- … ranscribed
If someone is actively chasing you are you still not justified to defend yourself if he catches up?
The last four words seem crucial - "IF he catches up". There is no evidence that Zimmerman caught up, while there is testimony that Martin "caught up" by doubling back and accosting Zimmerman.
Which is true would seem to be important, at least to me.
Let me get your claim straight, you are indicating you believe that Trayvon ran away and was chased, got away made a call to his girlfriend (who he was on the phone with when Zimmerman confronted him) and then while on the phone to his girlfriend and still talking doubled back to look for the fight he just ran from?
You seriously believe that?
Would you "accost" someone while talking on the phone? Besides the conversation indicates Zimmerman confronted him first as the first words are from Zimmerman while Trayvon was still on the phone.
I make no claim at all, nor do I present what I think happened - don't put words in my mouth.
I present a possible scenario that is borne out by reported testimony and facts but present no new evidence. I ask "what if" - something few seem to want to do - as an indication that we don't know what went down.
You can make up your own mind as to guilt based in insufficient evidence, but I will not. For instance, Zimmerman reports that Martin doubled back and was the agressor; the girlfriend indicates that she heard Zimmerman speak first in a threatening manner. I don't believe either one in total. I believe that both are probably half-truths, but cannot say for sure. Certainly not with the surety to make a verdict of guilty OR innocent.
But, the black guy is obviously wrong as in cases where the NY cops pump forty bullets into a black guy sitting on his front steps or beat up a black guy lying on the pavement with his hands cuffed behind his back. You are quite predictable.
True. The stand your ground law is a two way street. If it applied to Zimmerman, it also applied to Trayvon's actions to defend himself against Zimmerman. The issue then becomes whether or not Trayvon's actions against Zimmerman were sufficient to cause him to fear for his life and justify his shooting of Trayvon.
Very true. And a reason I think that particular is very poorly written and will soon be revisited by the Florida legislature. The intent behind the law is probably good, but the wording used ruins it. If the legislature wants to say that it's OK to attack first as a "defensive" measure they've simply got to make it a better than it is.
In the Zimmerman/Martin case, though, it doesn't look like either side will bring that law up. Probably because it applies, just as you say, to both sides. At least that's the rumor I hear...
Here is my scenario:
People in the area suffer a rash of burglaries (fact)
They form a Neighborhood Watch to combat this problem as people are tired of coming home to find their houses violated and ransacked and their hard earned possessions stolen (fact)
George Zimmerman sees an unknown person lurking around and calls 911 to report a suspicious person. (fact)
Knowing that TM was found with burglary tools and women's jewelry in his backpack by a school Police Officer leads me to believe he well could have been scoping out a home to break in to. These kids are savvy enough to go buy a pop and Skittles in order to look innocent while looking for their next caper. No stretch there at all.
TM sees GZ watching him. GZ meanwhile is heading back to his car to await police arrival to direct them to the person of interest. (GZ has said this is what he was doing)
TM doubles back and confronts GZ asking him if he has a problem (GZ has also said this happened) When he said "No, no problem" TM replied "You do now" (this is also per a TV interview with GZ)
Fight begins with TM going after GZ. (TM is 6' and 180 lbs, man sized in anyone's book) GZ is 5'-9" and about 160 lbs.
TM get's GZ on the ground (as per witness statements) and starts to hit him repeatedly and smash his head against the edge of the sidewalk (again per interview with GZ)
GZ yells for help. TM says something to the effect that GZ is going to die tonight (per GZ statements) At this point GZ is in legitimate fear of his life and uses deadly force to save him self from great bodily harm or death.
Perfectly within the law for use of deadly force in self defense. Stand Your Ground does not even enter in to the equation. You have an absolute right to self defense based on a legitimate fear for your life or of great bodily harm.
This, or a very close version of it, is what I believe the evidence will show during the trial.
So yeah, random citizen with absolutely no authority decides to stalk someone until they punch him in the mouth.
That's what I said.
Except I didn't add the part where Zimmerman was too weak to defend himself and got his ass kicked so bad he had to pull a gun to save his own butt.
You mean thuggish punk doubles back to confront a guy walking back to his car, right? Sounds like TM had a guilty mind that night to me.
No, it sounds someone was being followed and chose fight over flight. Both are equally valid choices.
I wouldn't feel safe turning my back on someone who was stalking me. Would you?
In the eyes of the law, given the scenario you just put forward, no, fight is not a legal choice. It is assault and battery.
Stalking is a crime. Anything that happens during the commission of a crime is the fault of the perpetrator of that crime.
Ever hear of someone shooting their stalker?
Ever hear of someone going to jail for it?
Menacing is also a crime in many states.
Self defense is used successfully as a defense for altercations caused by it. All the time.
Stalking has to be adjudicated by a court and a protection order issued. Following someone is not stalking.
I wish you people who know nothing about the law would quit talking as if you do.
Attacking someone for following you IS a crime, it's called assault and battery.
No one has ever been arrested for stalking without a previous restraining order?
*Rolls eyes* I wish that people with no idea of a persons educational background would stop assuming that other people don't have a legal education, or experience, just because they don't agree with their opinions.
No they haven't.
Stalking has certain elements to the crime that must be satisfied first and a protection order issued. Following a person who you don't know and who doesn't know you is not stalking. Stalking is a different crime with different elements.
GZ had a legal right to be where he was, someone not liking that doesn't change it to stalking, sorry.
So, why don't you enlighten all of us as to your extensive legal background. Mine is 18 years in Law Enforcement and 6 years as an MP in the Marine Corps. I'll put that up against anything you've got any day of the week.
And further, a restraining order and a stalking order are two different things.
One would think with your extensive legal knowledge you would know that.
Mine is an ASD in Law and 2 years interning for the prosecuting attorney.
I can also add 7 years of working with RDVIC with victims of both stalking and menacing. If you would like to go into specific details of each, we can. So your pissing contest requirements can be fulfilled.
Stalking, as a layman's term, is appropriate for use as synonym to following and implies ill intent.
Stalking as a criminal term requires a sexual/domestic component in most states.
Stalking can be prosecuted without a previous restraining order. However you are correct, there must be a personal history of behavior. You are incorrect, at least in my state, that a restraining order/ order of protection is necessary in that history.
So let's move on to menacing... which is exactly what I did when I went into specific legalities. It is the little sister/brother of stalking... But you already knew that, if you have the experience you say you do. You also know that it is used when those stalking conditions aren't met.
Now, are you going to seriously sit there and tell me that you believe that an affirmative defense of self-defense from the victim of menacing who has used force isn't an excessively effective defense?
Not that it usually goes there in the first place because no PA that would like to have their job again next term would even attempt to prosecute a victim of menacing on a A&B charge.
I am going to tell you that there is no, I repeat no, evidence of any menacing from GZ other than in the fantasy you've built in your head about how this went down. So that argument is moot.
If he didn't like being watched then what he did was an assault without provocation.
You, like the OP, have to assume many things not in evidence in order to bolster your preferred outcome.
What the evidence points to is that GZ observed him from a distance and then headed back to his car to await the arrival of a unit. TM did not like being watched, circled back and confronted GZ. THAT is what the evidence shows and it goes with all the other physical evidence and GZ's statements on the night of the incident.
GZ had a legal right to be where he was, to be doing what he was doing and to be armed. TM did NOT have a right to provoke a confrontation because he did not like that.
And to be honest, your little associates degree and two years of internship don't impress me in the least.
At least not to the degree I would think you had any real knowledge of the law, law enforcement or how either is done. Many of your previous comments bear that out.
Well, to be honest your years of law enforcement really don't mean much to me in this circumstance.
Law Enforcement officers have little to do with actual trial law. You know enough to find cause for arrest but very rarely is the initial charge what is tried anyway. Unless you've hit detective status, you aren't even responsible for piecing evidence together, just the arrest. The detectives are actually the ones that work with the PA in the court process.
Arresting officers might be called in to give testimony... that's about it.
I mean I respect the hell out of you guys, but you guys aren't really even middle management in preparing for trial.
You know field law, not court law. Police procedures, not court procedures.
Law Enforcement isn't really the same as adjudication. Two separate processes. They do that for a reason.
Not an insult at all. Just a clarification of roles.
Everybody knows this at some level... that's why they don't call lawyers when their house is broken into and they don't call the police to represent them in court.
If both sides had equal knowledge and skills the two roles would be interchangeable.
That seems about as plausible as an upright member of society deciding to go out and kill a kid tonight.
I've little doubt that some of that is correct, but I also have grave doubts as to much of the details of Zimmermans testimony to date.
Just based on the physical evidence that has been released so far, I don't.
There is a reason he was released after the incident and the DA found it to be a case of self defense and thus filed no charges.
He was rearrested only after the PC crowd got a hold of the story and the NBPP and other started doing what they do best.
Agreed, and that timeline is extremely worrisome as well.
At the same time it is exactly what I would expect the cops to do; take a statement and release the suspect pending further investigation unless enough evidence is already at hand to support a murder charge.
That the trial appears to be the result of mob mentality is not a good sign that the system is working. Neither is the time it took to make an arrest, however.
I love how you two guys are saying that it's up to the law and no one should say anyone should be guilty until the trial decides. Yet, everything you say is painting Martin as the bad guy in all this and that he deserved to be killed because he reacted like most teenaged boys would.
And I love how you all justify his attack as simply teenage exuberance. As if this is acceptable behavior because he was 17. Most teenage boys would definitely not attack another person. TM was known to be in to violence, even been posted on You tube participating in a "Fight Club". His own pictures paint him as a thug, this too was done by his own hand.
His own action got him killed, if anyone was in fear of their life in was GZ as he was having his head pounded against the pavement.
Stalking is unwanted or obsessive attention by an individual or group toward another person. Stalking behaviors are related to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person or monitoring them.
http://www.ohiolegalservices.org/public … ndact_view
More importantly, Florida law requires that "stalking" be multiple instances of following, threats, etc. As there was just one instance, it would not seem to apply.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/ind … 4.048.html
You are correct in that Florida does use repeat a number of times regarding its stalking laws there is however and OR.
stalking: willful, malicious and repeated following OR harassing another with credible threats with the intent to place person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury; or willfully,
http://statelaws.findlaw.com/florida-la … -laws.html
I read that as repeated following OR repeated harassing another. Obviously the judge may disagree, but I don't see a single instance of harassment being stalking. Wrong, yes, but not what I would consider stalking - that's a different "crime".
I was using stalking to mean following, not specifically the legal definition. The actual crime in this case would be menacing.
Stalking is menacing, but menacing isn't necessarily stalking. Both are forms of harassment.
Zimmerman was legally menacing as well as figuratively menacing. He was only figuratively stalking.
But you indeed did mean the legal definition as evidenced by your posts to me. You said stalking was a crime and that GZ was committing that specific crime and was part of why he was at fault for the incident in your mind.
You plainly stated that stalking was illegal and did not require a court order to be violated.
If you say so. I'll admit to bad phrasing. I switched to menacing before you even stated your opinion (in the same post actually) however. I caught my own error.
It doesn't require a court order to be prosecuted in my state. Don't know what state you live in.
Like I said, not getting in a pissing contest. Don't feel any real need to impress your or insult you. Not that insecure about myself.
Understood, but I was replying to Span Star and the link from a different state. Thus my own link, a legal definition and not a sloppy common one that has nothing to do with anything. Except, again, to portray Zimmerman as something he plainly is not.
There was talk about Mister Zimmerman having the freedom to patrol an area. My question is why didn't young American Trayvon Martin have that same freedom as should all Americans who simply was doing nothing besides minding their own business?
There is much talk about Mister Zimmerman being afraid, I find that peculiar since it was he who could not wait to go after young Trayvon Martin, how can one be afraid when they are the pursuer?
I'd say that both have pretty well profiled. Martin was profiled by Zimmerman as being "suspicious" for some rather suspicious behavior. Zimmerman was immediately profiled for being a racist and since then for being a wannabe cop - and that one again is probably accurate,
So yeah, both have the right to be there, but both should expect to be examined and profiled.
Well you caught me off guard with those comments, I wasn't expecting that from you.
What, pray tell was Treyvon Martin's crime? Martin was armed with Skittles and Zimmerman was carrying a firearm. One was a teenager coming back from a convenient store and one was attempting to be the macho protector. One was the hunted and one was the hunter. So, again, I ask, what was young Martin's crime to cause his death? Perhaps Martin's death was caused by walking while black, wearing a hoodie.
Maybe breaking the nose of an armed man? While that may or may not be a legal crime (that remains to be seen) it is certainly likely to be a "crime" worthy of death in the real world. Particularly when that armed man is a wannabe cop, full of macho attitude and trying to be something he isn't.
Just for the record, just because aggression happens between two people of different races doesn't mean that it is racially motivated.
I think everyone here needs to get over guilty white person syndrome.
Just for the record, it has been played out in the courtroom that Zimmerman profiled African Americans. I just thought I would bring that little tidbit up...just for the record.
Oh? I saw it had been accused in the courtroom... which is no great surprise.
The race card is almost always played when victim is a different race than the accused.
Part of the so called "justice" game any more. Sad that our courtrooms have deteriorated to the point that convincing a jury, without presenting any evidence, of a racial problem is more important that providing that jury facts to work with.
I think it's really always been that way. Part of a jury trial has always been assassination of character by the prosecution. It's easier to convict someone you dislike on a personal basis.
Yeah - play on the emotions of the jury for all you've got. Prohibit any witness answers you don't want made public. Minimize factual and pertinent information all you can. Lay out 20 charges in the hopes of a plea bargain offer.
It's how the game is played, and what is so sad.
And gosh golly, gee wilikers, who is almost ALWAYS the victim in these type of cases?
Yes, because only black people get shot. Furthermore, black people only get shot by Hispanics.
Good to know.
I'm just curious...are you also a Glenn Beck follower who is so fearful of the Caucasian race taking a back seat? Personally, I think color is something we should all be color blind about, but sadly, those who have a superiority complex do not want that to happen.
Yes, that's me. I must obviously be a racist. You nailed it.
Well, it was obvious to the most casual observer.
Really? That's neat. Glad you can read people so well as to be able to accurately conclude that their motives are racist.
Excuse me Ms. White American, but where in these posts have I written the word "racist"? Isn't it amazing that people see exactly the colors they want to see. Aah...division equals superiority. Quite frankly, that line of thought sickens me. I'm so proud I grew up in the area of Harriet Tubman and the "Freedom Trail!"
Keep going... I'll stop laughing enough to respond thoroughly here in a minute.
Quite frankly young lady, I am too old, too wise to the world of the past and way beyond your West Virginia years to try and reason with your limited scope, caring and understanding of others who do not march to the drumbeat of white America and the ingrained thought process that has been passed down from one generation to another. I neither have the time nor the inclination to engage with you any longer.
Yep, that'll do it. Just waiting for you to dig that hole deep enough.
My son (biological before you ask) and his brother.
You grew up in the area of Harriet Tubman and the Freedom Trail so you aren't racist. I actually pushed a black person out of my womb.
But yes, you appear to be very good at telling whether someone is racist or not and concluding that their actions must be based on that racism.
Please note, I said "victim" and NOT perpetrator.
Must be hell going through life with that type of self-loathing pagesvoice.
I bet you could find racism in a ham sandwich, or at least be convinced in your narrow little mind that you had. Does it hurt to have such a narrow mind filled with so much hubris??? It must.
MelissaBarrett being slapped down as a young, white, racist West Virginia cracker.
Is that really what I am reading here?
Speechless. Simply speechless.
Yes, apparently from somebody who prides himself on being able to detect racism. It is OBVIOUS to him and everybody else that I am a racist... and apparently a Glenn Beck groupy.
I think I proved my point that racism gets blamed for motivation quite a bit more than it is actually motivation.
It does, indeed.
How many cases of Latino on African-American violence do we hear about??
Is African American on African American violence race related?
Perhaps it is deep seeded self-hatred, internalized bigotry and oppression.
Do keep us posted on any enlightening nuggets you glean from Mr. Beck, Melissa!
Young lady -- that's a new one!
I will do... I'm going to see if I can find the Glen Beck Box Set. Two actually, I want to have a set for the van too.
I think he was using young lady in comparison. Yes, that's my child OBVIOUSLY in a graduation gown. So if being old enough to have a child in college (yay go Kyle... and yay go me) still makes me a young lady he must be really really old.
Which he refers to to prove his wisdom... and my racism.
Both claims are equally valid.
I owe you a sincere and heartfelt apology. There are times when I can get so caught up in a debate that I too lose focus on the issue at hand. I exhibited a complete lack of decorum yesterday and that is something I dislike. You obviously have much more skin in the debate than I do and I should have recognized that. Sometimes we (meaning me) need to step back and reassess our motives. I prejudged you based on the area you live and that was totally wrong. Truth be told, I ended up profiling you and it troubles me that I did so. Again, please accept my apologies. Dennis.
Just for the record about WV, there are still pockets of the whole "Buck Wild" stereotypes, but it's not nearly as bad as you would imagine.
Minorities are rather in the minority here, moreso than in most other states, but actual blatant racism doesn't really happen all that much.
We have "Buck Wild" stereotypes in the north, as well. Those kind of people, sadly, are everywhere. We all need to unite and keep fighting to end racism at every level. I do find this trial quite interesting and right now it is pretty much up in the air regarding which way the jury will go. I'm sure the verdict will bring about another flurry of activity.
All in all I believe this has been a healthy exchange of comments and ideas whether we agree or not agree. I should like to thank all involved with addressing the issues.
by Sooner283 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law"In the United States of America, stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an...
by SpanStar3 years ago
Mister Michael Dunn as Black teenagers to turn the music down in their vehicle. After a verbal confrontation Mister Dunn took his gun shot and killed one teenager and fired at the others in the vehicle. After which he...
by Ralph Deeds4 years ago
ALEC may be the largest single source of evil in the United States. The acronym stands for American Legislative Exchange Council. It authored Florida's "stand your ground law" and engineered the introduction...
by vveasey3 years ago
If Martin's hand was covering Zimmerman's mouth as he claims, wouldn't the screams have sounded muffled? Zimmerman's DNA wasn't found on Martin's hands so was it Zimmerman or Martin screaming?
by Longhunter4 years ago
http://news.yahoo.com/official-charges- … 38994.htmlIt's about damn time but can he get a fair trial?Will all groups on both sides of this issue accept the outcome of a trial and move on?
by Credence23 years ago
Being caught up in the debate, I slept on it and upon awakening realized that I, too, have allowed myself to caught in the hysteria. When I or anyone allows this to overwhelm it shortcircuits one's reasoning...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.