FBI Finds No Racial Bias in Trayvon Martin Shooting

Originally posted by FreeFromTheHerd

Originally posted by Valhall


I wouldn't consider myself "left" in any form or fashion, but the evidence does not support that Zimmerman killed anyone in self-defense. You don't bring a gun to a fist fight...especially one for which your actions caused the initiation.

edit on 7-14-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)

Evidently you haven't paid any attention at all to the reports about this case. The injuries on the back of Zimmermans head.......where do you suppose those came from?

Wait, let me guess....He shot the dude, then beat his own head on the pavement right?

And apparently you haven't paid attention to a f***king word I've said.

I assure you, I've followed this case closely and thoroughly. I'm not going to repeat myself considering I was very very clear on what I said previously.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Xcathdra
It removes that argument for intent from the prosecutions case. They can no longer state the reason Zimmerman did what he did was because Martin was black.

Yes. I know that. I knew that the instant I read the title. I understand. And I have said nothing to the contrary. Please READ. Your assumptions are just causing confusion.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think this news that the FBI found no racial element is a good thing. It will take some of the emotion out of the proceedings and they can get on with the business of trying the man for killing the kid, without the influence of race being a factor. I don't think it's huge news, but it's good news.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Yes. I know that. I knew that the instant I read the title. I understand.

And I have said nothing to the contrary. Please READ. Your assumptions are just causing confusion.

So you never said this in your post here on page 1 of this thread or did I misread your post -

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
1. Whether Zimmerman had racist motivation or not only deals with the "hate crime" assertion of the murder. It doesn't mean there was no racism, it just means the FBI found no evidence of racism. I didn't either. I suspect there was a racial element, but I'm not crazy about hate crime legislation anyway, so no harm done, IMO. So, the news is only "huge" in that it absolves him of a "hate crime".

2. This news does NOT support Zimmerman's assertion that Trayvon was "being suspicious". That's not how law works. All this news says is that the FBI cannot prove a hate crime. The state still has to do its job.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I think this news that the FBI found no racial element is a good thing. It will take some of the emotion out of the proceedings and they can get on with the business of trying the man for killing the kid, without the influence of race being a factor. I don't think it's huge news, but it's good news.

Its a torpedo in the side of the prosecutions case...

The prosecutions case was/is based on painting Zimmerman out to be racist and spoiling for a confrontation. Defense can argue there was nothing criminal about Zimmermans actions because he was not arrested the night of the incident - which came a month+/- later.
They will put the lead detective on the stand first thing and walk him through his PC statement, specifically the part that states Zimmerman confronted Martin. The detective stated at the prelim he had no evidence that Zimmerman confronted Martin.

At that point, again if this case it gets that far and I dont think it will, the detective will most likely be witness number 1. Under cross by the defnese they are going to raise that issue in his pc statement. The detective will be forced to answer the question, and since he answered it once under oath already any deviation from the first answer is perjury.

So right off the bat a jury is going to hear that the lead detective put false information in his PC statement coupled with the fact he has no evidence to support the claim he made.

Unless there is a smoking gun in the evidence not released yet, and I dont think there is since Zimmermans lawyer is looking at filing a motion to dimiss the charges based on the stand your ground law immunity for criminal / civil actions, I dont see how the prosecution can even meet its burden under law.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by HamrHeed

 

So no, Zimmerman didn't murder out of racial hatred. But Zimmerman did commit manslaughter, in my honest opinion. He had no right putting himself or Martin in that situation, and despite all warnings did so anyway.

Very well put all the way around and you covered both sides of the issue very well, I'd say. I don't think this was racial at all and as you note, was literal self defense at the end. Once it went physical, the gun was going to be drawn or simply fall out eventually, and one of the two was going to use it..so it became a life and death thing the moment that line was crossed...even if only Zimmerman knew it when it started.

,,,and there is why I agree on the 2nd part on his fault here. We may not know for sure but for his own phone call that he absolutely did have the ability to deescalate and walk away. He was even asked to. That is where he, as a CCW especially, had the responsibility to fall back and let the police do what he called them to do. For that, I think manslaughter might well be appropriate. He shouldn't have pushed...it's that simple to me. Murder was always overcharging to an obscene level though. Pure politics.

Originally posted by FreeFromTheHerd

Originally posted by habitforming


Don't worry, plenty of us think it was just murder.

Plenty of morons also think with emotion because confronting facts would cause great confusion in their tiny little peanut brains.

Hey man, do not be so hard on yourself.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

There is nothing illegal about following an individual, either on foot or by car.

That is funny because I would think a real cop would know about stalking laws.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Haha, it looks like you will have to define stalking yet again, Xcathedra.

Good luck!

reply to post by habitforming


so are you trying to say that martin had a restraining order against a man he never met? pretty sure to get chargd with stalking you have to have done it on more then one day the person will have to call the police to report the stalking then if u were to follow them again it could be stalking but following some one he does not know and has had no contact prior to is not stalking

Pathé and Mullen describe stalking as "a constellation of behaviours in which an individual inflicts upon another repeated unwanted intrusions and communications".[5] Stalking can be defined as the willful and repeated following, watching and/or harassing of another person. Unlike other crimes, which usually involve one act, stalking is a series of actions that occur over a period of time. Although stalking is illegal, some of the actions that can contribute to stalking are initially legal, such as gathering information, calling someone on the phone, sending gifts, emailing or instant messaging. They become illegal when they breach the legal definition of harassment e.g. an action such as sending a text is not usually illegal, but is illegal when frequently repeated to an unwilling recipient. In fact United Kingdom law states the incident only has to happen twice when the stalker should be aware their behavior is unacceptable e.g. two phone calls to a stranger, two gifts following the victim then phoning them etc. However, the victim may feel they have been the victim of a stalking after one incident e.g. being followed home.[6]

en.wikipedia.org...
www.leg.state.fl.us.../0784/Sections/0784.048.html florida law on stalking incase any one else was curious

reply to post by KilrathiLG


Correct.
If it was as easy as some people seem to think, celebrities wouldn't ever be bothered by paparazzi!

Fact is, you can follow a stranger right to the edge of their property, even taking photographs of them the whole time. That's how most private investigators make their living.
The person being stalked needs to file with a court to get a restraining order to stop an actual stalker. There are some hurdles to cross to get a restraining order. It isn't a matter of just asking a judge for one and getting one handed down without good reason.

Originally posted by habitforming
That is funny because I would think a real cop would know about stalking laws.

I am familiar with stalking laws. Respectfully you should brush up on them and understand them before insinuating something towards me that is not true.

Here is a clue for you so pay attention - Todays word of the day is repeatedly.
FL Statute -784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.—

Important element for stalking -

(b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose.

The law requires -

(2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

Stalking is defined as a repeated behavior by one person towards another. Zimmerman only came across Martin that night, so there is no "stalking".

Huh... look at that. A real cop who does in fact know what stalking is.

Anything else that I can correct you on?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Huh... look at that. A real cop who does in fact know what stalking is.

Where?
So you can google. Can you think?
Here is what you said.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

There is nothing illegal about following an individual, either on foot or by car.

Then you go on in this post to list some of the things that are illegal about following an individual. See if you can figure that out.

Anything else that I can correct you on?

edit on 14-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Else?
What did you correct me on so far?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Oh, don't get your hopes up. We still need to know why the armed Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed Martin, becoming the aggressor, after having been told not to. That's the key to this case, IMO.

I always respect your opinions though I always seem to disagree with you.

I don't see exiting the vehicle as becoming the aggressor. I also don't see dispatch saying 'We don't need you to do that sir' as a command, and even if it were a dispatcher can really only give (very wise in this case) advice.

I think Zimmerman acted stupidly, but I don't see him as having broken any laws. I also don't see Trayvon being justified in assaulting him, if the story is true and Zimmerman didn't initiate physical contact.

reply to post by habitforming


What part of the word "repeatedly" is confusing you?

Zimmerman did not have repeated contact with Martin. He had one encounter and that was it. Zimmerman's actions dont even come close to stalking. As I said, if you don't know / understand the law, dont try to use it to support your position.

Google? Are you that stubborn that when you are wrong you can't admit you were wrong?

The link takes you to the Statutes of the state of Florida, which is where this entire incident took place. Since it was very evident you have no idea what stalking is or the elements of the crime to qualify, I linked you to the actual law.

I provided the link / info to correct your mistake / lack of knowledge / non understanding of the law.

Apparently you failed to read it.

Again, the key word is repeatedly, meaning more than one time, more than one encounter with the same person over the course of time covering certain actions by the suspect. It requires multiple police reports involving the same suspect and victim.

Repeatedly... more than once.

Zimmerman had contact with Martin only once - the night of the occurence.

So, again, you are wrong - Here is the info you are ignoring.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Haha, it looks like you will have to define stalking yet again, Xcathedra.

Good luck!

Yup.. and apparently denial just aint a river in Egypt either.

Link to the actual law in question...
An explanation on how the law works...
Specifically pointing out the word repeatedly as being a key element...

and here we are...

reply to post by habitforming


well he did and you keep ignoring it its only stalking if you complain about it to authorities and it goes on for more then ONE incident seeing as the incident happened when they first met each other stalking harassment laws don't seem to apply so by all means keep yelling at some one who was trying to teach you something guess ignorance is bliss but to each their own

stalking is not relevant to the case in question perhaps some of the people who have been threatening mr Zimmerman will be up on stalking/cyberstalking charges if not harassment for the threats of violence against him and his family as those DO fall under the definitions of stalking laws federal aswell as state

reply to post by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Xcathdra There is nothing illegal about following an individual, either on foot or by car.

I am going to have to agree with you here, Xcath.

There might be something illegal about 'stalking' someone, but following someone isn't 'stalking' is it?
Stalking involves following in some cases, but they are not interchangeable.
Not everyone knows that, apparently.

I would argue that if Zimmerman is found innocent and cleared of the charges there is going to be looting and rioting on a national scale propped up and fueled by social media and social networking much in the same way that the black flash mob robberies have been launched recently.

I think it would probably be a good idea to prepare for this upon the day the verdict is released. I think it is going to make the 1992 LA riots look like a cookout. August 8th is the day that the trial begins. I have no idea how long it will take to present all the evidence and witness testimony for this. I imagine not too long.

Originally posted by KilrathiLG
reply to post by habitforming

 

so are you trying to say that martin had a restraining order against a man he never met?

No, I never said anything even remotely like that. Where did you read it?

pretty sure to get chargd with stalking you have to have done it on more then one day the person will have to call the police to report the stalking then if u were to follow them again it could be stalking but following some one he does not know and has had no contact prior to is not stalking

Cool story.

Pathé and Mullen describe stalking as "a constellation of behaviours in which an individual inflicts upon another repeated unwanted intrusions and communications".[5] Stalking can be defined as the willful and repeated following, watching and/or harassing of another person. Unlike other crimes, which usually involve one act, stalking is a series of actions that occur over a period of time. Although stalking is illegal, some of the actions that can contribute to stalking are initially legal, such as gathering information, calling someone on the phone, sending gifts, emailing or instant messaging. They become illegal when they breach the legal definition of harassment e.g. an action such as sending a text is not usually illegal, but is illegal when frequently repeated to an unwilling recipient. In fact United Kingdom law states the incident only has to happen twice when the stalker should be aware their behavior is unacceptable e.g. two phone calls to a stranger, two gifts following the victim then phoning them etc. However, the victim may feel they have been the victim of a stalking after one incident e.g. being followed home.[6]

en.wikipedia.org...
www.leg.state.fl.us.../0784/Sections/0784.048.html florida law on stalking incase any one else was curious

I wonder if you were even able to read what I posted at all and what I was responding to.

Originally posted by Domo1

I think Zimmerman acted stupidly, but I don't see him as having broken any laws. I also don't see Trayvon being justified in assaulting him, if the story is true and Zimmerman didn't initiate physical contact.

If you "act stupidly" and someone I love dies as a result of your stupidity, I want to see you try to tell me how it was ok that you did that stupid thing you did not need to do.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by habitforming

 

What part of the word "repeatedly" is confusing you?

None. What part of what you said are you wishing you had not said now?

Originally posted by Xcathdra

There is nothing illegal about following an individual, either on foot or by car.

Right so doing it repeatedly is illegal.
Hey can you follow me onto private property? No? Oh that is another THING that is illegal about following a person.
Any more?
You said NO THING. I already see two things.

Zimmerman did not have repeated contact with Martin. He had one encounter and that was it. Zimmerman's actions dont even come close to stalking. As I said, if you don't know / understand the law, dont try to use it to support your position.

Google? Are you that stubborn that when you are wrong you can't admit you were wrong?

The link takes you to the Statutes of the state of Florida, which is where this entire incident took place. Since it was very evident you have no idea what stalking is or the elements of the crime to qualify, I linked you to the actual law.

I provided the link / info to correct your mistake / lack of knowledge / non understanding of the law.

Apparently you failed to read it.

Again, the key word is repeatedly, meaning more than one time, more than one encounter with the same person over the course of time covering certain actions by the suspect. It requires multiple police reports involving the same suspect and victim.

Repeatedly... more than once.

Zimmerman had contact with Martin only once - the night of the occurence.

So, again, you are wrong - Here is the info you are ignoring.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Haha, it looks like you will have to define stalking yet again, Xcathedra.

Good luck!

Yup.. and apparently denial just aint a river in Egypt either.

Link to the actual law in question...
An explanation on how the law works...
Specifically pointing out the word repeatedly as being a key element...

and here we are...

edit on 14-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Cool story bro.
Here is what you said again.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

There is nothing illegal about following an individual, either on foot or by car.

Hey, lookey there. You did not even mention Zimmerman. You just flat out said there is nothing illegal about following someone. I already pointed out two things that are illegal about following someone.

Let me know where I am losing you.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Originally posted by Xcathdra There is nothing illegal about following an individual, either on foot or by car.

I am going to have to agree with you here, Xcath.

There might be something illegal about 'stalking' someone, but following someone isn't 'stalking' is it?
Stalking involves following in some cases, but they are not interchangeable.
Not everyone knows that, apparently.

So you agree there is NO THING illegal about following a person.
Even though you admit doing it repeatedly is illegal?
Wow. That sounds like there is a thing about following a person that is illegal.

Maybe it is the English language that is tripping you guys up?
I'd love to have a grammar test in here.