jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (150 posts)

Representatives "Stand Your Ground Law" don't agree with Mr. Zimmerman

  1. SpanStar profile image61
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    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.
                        -----------------------------------http://www.clutchmagonline.com/2012/03/creators-of-stand-your-ground-law-say-trayvon-martins-murderer-should-be-arrested/

    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?"

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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?

      1. SpanStar profile image61
        SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        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?

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
          MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. SpanStar profile image61
            SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Hello Melissa,

            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.

        2. Reality Bytes profile image94
          Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          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?

          1. SpanStar profile image61
            SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Reality,

            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.

            1. Reality Bytes profile image94
              Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              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.

        3. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. Sri T profile image79
            Sri Tposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. Sri T profile image79
                Sri Tposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                We all have been in fights. You win some, you lose some. But killing someone with a gun is a crime, I think.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Sri T profile image79
                    Sri Tposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I hope no one attacks you. If I had your philosophy, I would have left a trail of bodies behind me.

                2. Superkev profile image87
                  Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
                    Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    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?

                  2. Zelkiiro profile image85
                    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    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?

              2. Uninvited Writer profile image82
                Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                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?

                1. SpanStar profile image61
                  SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Uninvited Writer,

                  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. .

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    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?

                2. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

            2. SpanStar profile image61
              SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Sri T
              absolutely correct-we cannot base our actions on appearance

          2. SpanStar profile image61
            SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            If you can't see these wrong assertions and all I can say is you never will.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Guess not. smile

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              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?

              1. SpanStar profile image61
                SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Wilderness,

                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.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. SpanStar profile image61
                    SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Wilderness,

                    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.

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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.

    3. HowardBThiname profile image89
      HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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.

  2. SpanStar profile image61
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    Wilderness,

    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.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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.

    2. Superkev profile image87
      Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      @SpanStar:

      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.

      1. SpanStar profile image61
        SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Superkev,

        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.

        1. Superkev profile image87
          Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Attacked Zimmerman, broke his nose and pounded his head against a sidewalk, how's that for illegal?

          1. SpanStar profile image61
            SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Well tell me Superkev when one is fighting for their life against some stranger What Would You Do?

            1. Superkev profile image87
              Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. Superkev profile image87
                Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                *Consciousness

          2. Uninvited Writer profile image82
            Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            How do we know he actually did that? The person who said he saw that happen now says he didn't.

            1. Superkev profile image87
              Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              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

              1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
                Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                If he thought it might get him off a murder charge... yes...

            2. SpanStar profile image61
              SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Uninvited Writer,

              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.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                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.

              2. Superkev profile image87
                Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                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.

  3. PrettyPanther profile image86
    PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago

    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?

    1. Superkev profile image87
      Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      So he attacked instead of walked away the way you say Zimmerman should have?

    2. MelissaBarrett profile image61
      MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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.

  4. MelissaBarrett profile image61
    MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago

    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.

    1. Superkev profile image87
      Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      So Martin attacked him and he defended himself.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
        MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        LOL, sure.

        If you go by the stalking someone until they punch you in the mouth then shooting them for it is self-defense theory.

        1. Superkev profile image87
          Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          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?

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
            MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            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?

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
        MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          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).

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
            MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                    MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    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.

                  2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    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.

      2. Superkev profile image87
        Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
          MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. Superkev profile image87
            Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
              MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              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?

              1. Superkev profile image87
                Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                  MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Superkev profile image87
                    Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    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.

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. Superkev profile image87
            Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              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.

  5. Uninvited Writer profile image82
    Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago

    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.

    1. Superkev profile image87
      Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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.

  6. SpanStar profile image61
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking

    Stalking Defined:

    http://www.ohiolegalservices.org/public … ndact_view

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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

      1. SpanStar profile image61
        SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        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

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          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".

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
            MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. Superkev profile image87
              Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                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.

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              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.

  7. SpanStar profile image61
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    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?

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. SpanStar profile image61
        SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Well you caught me off guard with those comments, I wasn't expecting that from you.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Why?  I've stated over and over and over that we simply don't have sufficient information to declare guilt or innocence.  That's just another part of it - look for truth on BOTH sides of the equation and not just one side.

  8. pagesvoice profile image83
    pagesvoiceposted 3 years ago

    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.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. pagesvoice profile image83
        pagesvoiceposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        God almighty...heaven forbid a person tries to defend their right to walk in a neighborhood when a wanna be (failed) cop has profiled them and is in hot pursuit of his prey.

  9. MelissaBarrett profile image61
    MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago

    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.

    1. pagesvoice profile image83
      pagesvoiceposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
        MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
            MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              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.

        2. pagesvoice profile image83
          pagesvoiceposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          And gosh golly, gee wilikers,  who is almost ALWAYS the victim in these type of cases?

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
            MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, because only black people get shot. Furthermore, black people only get shot by Hispanics.

            Good to know.

            1. pagesvoice profile image83
              pagesvoiceposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, that's me.  I must obviously be a racist. You nailed it.

                1. pagesvoice profile image83
                  pagesvoiceposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, it was obvious to the most casual observer.

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                    MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Really?  That's neat. Glad you can read people so well as to be able to accurately conclude that their motives are racist.

          2. pagesvoice profile image83
            pagesvoiceposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Please note, I said "victim" and NOT perpetrator.

            1. Superkev profile image87
              Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              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.

  10. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    MelissaBarrett being slapped down as a young, white, racist West Virginia cracker.
    Is that really what I am reading here?
    Speechless. Simply speechless.
    lol

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
      MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        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!

        lol lol

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
          MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. pagesvoice profile image83
            pagesvoiceposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
              MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It happens smile

              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.

              1. pagesvoice profile image83
                pagesvoiceposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                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.

  11. SpanStar profile image61
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    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.

 
working