Zimmerman DID have BLOODIED head NEW photo shows

reply to post by AGWskeptic

None of this would have happened if he had listened to the police.

For the six-million and tenth time, the police never issued any order for zimmerman to stand down. A civillian dispatcher uttered a statement. It has no legal weight.

He confronted someone he had no right to confront.

We don't know who confronted whom. Plus,it is not illegal to follow a person. I could pick a person at random and follow them all day. If I keep my hands to myself, don't enter their personal property (car, house, etc) I have broken no law. If I walk behind them and ask them, "why are you here," "what is your name," or even "is your mother is a dilapidated douche bag with ovaries like dust," still no law is broken. If they touch me they become the aggressor by law.

We don't know who confronted who. We may never truly know. However, it is best not to judge on empty assumptions.

Originally posted by hanyak69
reply to post by phishyblankwaters

 

Martin had a choice, he could have talked instead of beaten down Zimmerman. Any reasonable person that is not doing anything wrong would say hi and start a civilized conversation. Not put his hands in his pants and walk up and start a confrontation. Zimmerman was just trying to get information for the police, on someone that looked suspicious to him which is the purpose of having a watch. He was doing what he thought he was supposed to do.
I regret that someone lost their life but.............

Zimmerman made a choice as well. According to Zimmermans own father Trayvon ask Zimmerman 'Do you have a problem?' Zimmerman replied 'No, I don't have a problem. This is according to Zimmerman's own father as to what Zimmerman told him. Let's just stop there.

Why didn't Zimmerman say 'Im George, Neighborhood watch.....etc'.....or say 'Yes, I have a problem, Ive called the police on you and they are on their way.'.......So why is Trayvon at fault again? I mean Zimmerman obviously had a problem with Trayvon or he wouldn't have called the police on him, right? So who is really to blame?

Zimmerman couldn't even man up to Trayvon's face and tell him that he had a problem with him in the neighborhood, according to daddy Zimmerman....watch the video for yourself.....starts at the 2:19 mark.

George Zimmerman's Father Speaks Out On All The Hate His Son Is

So all Trayvon knew was he was being followed by an adult, in the dark, who drove an SUV. I wonder what you tell you children to do in those situations? Run and scream for help I hope....Trayvon did those things. We have all heard him screaming on the 911 calls. It was also disclosed today that the FBI have analyzed those screams.....for all we know they have matched them to Trayvon conclusively.

reply to post by MikeNice81


Dispatchers have more authority than you think.

But we already know his intent, we have the tapes, we have his statements.

Black kids had burgled some houses in the area and George was going to stop it.

This is from his friends and his own statements, his intent is pretty well set.

reply to post by MikeNice81


If you followed someone all day it would be illegal, its called stalking/harassment


------------------------------
If someone is following me in the dark with a car or even by foot, I would be fearful for my life. That is some Ted Bundy serial killer behavior or a robbery. I'm sure Trayvon was terrified too as he had NO clue why some guy was following him, but whatever, everyone seems to lose logic when race is involved.

hes a volunteer rentacop

he did not listen to the officers who told him do not pursue

he should have waited for backup

he abused his power and he is responsible for taking unarmed life.

wether he got bloody or not

u cant ATTACK someone in their own residencial area then claim self defense!

esp when u were armed and they werent, to top it off.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
The police TOLD Zimmerman not to follow him, he did, which is threatening.

No, they did not TELL him to discontinue following him. They said "We do not need you to do that sir." That is not telling him what to do, only advising him into what he SHOULD do.

Reply to post by daaskapital

Please your just playing with words. The intent behind the words is clear to anyone with a tad bit of commone sense. We dont need you to do that means stop following him....nobody is that dense.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Who really cares about this? I'm not trying to be a troll, but really? An entire nation all wound up in the business of one man and another man who killed him. Who gives a ****? Just let things run their course.

Originally posted by samkent

Originally posted by NewerBeing
Ever since KONY and Zimmerman, I am convinced that the MSM is playing games with people. I honestly believe they are testing our stupidity. They want to see how fast things can get around, and it's proven that it gets around really fast.

It's a rating game with the media. You will watch the news channel that gives the wildest one line preview. Simply saying "black youth shot", won't draw viewers.
But as soon as you hear "Black child killed walking home with candy." you will tune in.

It's your fault as viewers.


But there is still one point that keeps being overlooked by the 'hang em high' crowd.

This hooded youth was walking around in the rain, in a gated comunity, where he didn't live. He must have hopped a fence to enter. Was it really 'on his way home'? Why shouldn't Zimmerman follow this suspisious person in his own neighborhood?
How often do the police stop a mugging 'in progress'?
How often do the police stop a burglary 'in progress'?
Wouldn't you feel safer knowing someone in your neighborhood is always walking around? Assume you know nothing about them carrying a gun.

You have excellent points, but I disagree with the statement that it our fault as viewers that this issue has escalated into the frenzied spectacle that it has become.

I think it is time that we make the media accountable for their biased reports of the news. Not watching the news will not have the desired results. We need to tear down the current media and start fresh with journalist that actually report the facts.

In case you didn't know, Zimmerman has already been put on trial.
Right here on ATS.

Check it out.

reply to post by kennvideo


As long as Dick Cheney got his heart transplant, that's all that matters - right?

reply to post by AGWskeptic


I know exactly how much authority they have. I work for a PD. The dispatcher has no authority unless the cop responding to the event "deputizes" them to act on their behalf. I have never known that to happen. I highly doubt it happened in this instance.

A dispatcher is a civilian with no authority to make legal demands on others.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by MikeNice81

 

If you followed someone all day it would be illegal, its called stalking/harassment

edit on 21-4-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

Stalking is a series of events over a period of time. It is not the simple act of following someone. It has to be a repeated action or actions that imply a threat or go beyond common harassment,

Harassment is the continuous unwanted and annoying actions of a person or group. The actions must constitute a threat, disrupt the life of the person, disrupt the business of a company, or make unreasonable demands of the person (or business) for the actions to stop.

Following a person may be an annoyance, but it is not harassment or stalking.

Assuming Trayvon used violence first, there is no way it could be justified as self-defense from his part IMHO. Following, really? Even if he thought he was threatened by being followed, running away and calling the police is the correct response, not turning around and outright attacking the follower first. The only justification to violence is direct violence, or immediate threat of violence without easy escape. Which simply following someone is not. So the whole point whether Zimmerman followed Trayvon is moot IMHO. The only question in this case, one which will determine who is guilty is who used violence or direct immidiate threat of violence first.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by AGWskeptic

 

I know exactly how much authority they have. I work for a PD. The dispatcher has no authority unless the cop responding to the event "deputizes" them to act on their behalf. I have never known that to happen. I highly doubt it happened in this instance.

A dispatcher is a civilian with no authority to make legal demands on others.

According to the people that wrote Florida's "stand your ground law" it will not protect Zimmerman.

"He has no protection under my law," former Sen. Durell Peaden

It is the fact that Zimmerman ignored the 911 operator's advice not to follow Martin that former Sen. Peaden says disqualifies him from claiming self-defense under the law.

"The guy lost his defense right then," Peaden told the Miami Herald. "When he said 'I'm following him,' he lost his defense."

Rep. Dennis Baxley, Peaden's co-sponsor in the Florida House, agrees with his former colleague, telling the newspaper that the law does not license neighborhood watch or others who feel "like they have the authority to pursue and confront people. That is aggravating an incident right there."

Author of "stand your ground" law: George Zimmerman should probably be arrested for killing Trayvon Martin

reply to post by buster2010


He can say what he wants to create distance. The fact still remains that a dispatcher has no legal authority unless deputized by the responding officer. If a man is breaking in your house and the dispatcher says, "don't shoot him" it has no legal baring. If a dispatcher says, "we don't need you to do that" while you are following somebody, it has the exact same amount of legal standing.

Zimmerman, as a civilian living in the neighborhood, had every legal right to follow a person he hadn't seen before and ask why they were there. If Zimmerman threatened or assaulted Trayvon, he crossed the line. However, by simply following Trayvon, Zimmerman was in the clear.

The pivot point of this case comes down to did Zimmerman threaten or attack Trayvon without provocation. We don't know what happened when Zimmerman and Trayvon came face to face. Until we do we don't know guilt or innocence.

ETA:
The SYG doesn't have to authorize people to follow a suspicious person. It is a long held legal right that you can follow and question anyone as long as it doesn't become harassment. and you do not enter their personal property. If you do not unduly interfere with their ability to conduct their life, threaten them, or make unreasonable demands of the person it is not harassment.

If I see a person walking around my neighbor's yard, and I don't recognize that person, I can approach them. I can follow them from the front yard to the back yard if necessary and ask them why they are there. If they continue in to another yard I can still follow them. If they stop I can say, "I have never seen you before. Why are you here and what are you doing?" That is perfectly legal and not considered harassment. I have not broken any law or instigated a fight. I still have the right to self defense if they fly off the handle and punch me in the face.

Link to photo is now dead. Anyone happen to save it before it went down? I'd like to see it.

i have to agree, you lose the self defense argument when you are on record telling the dispatcher youre going to follow him against advice

Originally posted by bknapple32
i have to agree, you lose the self defense argument when you are on record telling the dispatcher youre going to follow him against advice

Why? What law has been broken? If my cousin the auto mechanic tells you not to follow somebody does that have legal weight? He has the exact same amount of legal authority as a dispatcher.

Originally posted by bknapple32
i have to agree, you lose the self defense argument when you are on record telling the dispatcher youre going to follow him against advice

No, you dont. It would still be self-defense.


As for the case itself, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is there for a reason. There is lack of evidence, and that means he will be found innocent. Even if he did it, we have let much bigger criminals go due to lack of evidence. To convince someone is not easy.