It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FBI Finds No Racial Bias in Trayvon Martin Shooting

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilrathiLG
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


Ahem.


Originally posted by Xcathdra

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


Yes, there are SOME THINGS that are illegal about following an individual.




posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Following a person repeatedly is not necessarily illegal. Private investigators do it for a living. If you follow a person after a restraining order has been issued regarding that person, you will be arrested for violating that order, and possibly anti-stalking laws.
Following a person onto private property can be illegal, but they don't arrest you for 'following', they arrest you for trespass.

Violating a court order is illegal.
Trespassing is illegal.
There are probably a lot of things a person could do while following someone that would be illegal, like doing it nude. In that case they probably would arrest the perpetrator for public nudity, not 'following'.

Anyone know of any arrests made with the charge being following?


And if they make following illegal, maybe the country would be rid of mimes!
edit on 14-7-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Thank you for agreeing that there are some things that are illegal about following a person.
Just want to make sure we all share the same reality before going any further.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Doesn't matter. The MSM found racial bias, so that's how it's going to play.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
Following a person repeatedly is not necessarily illegal. Private investigators do it for a living. If you follow a person after a restraining order has been issued regarding that person, you will be arrested for violating that order, and possibly anti-stalking laws.
Following a person onto private property can be illegal, but they don't arrest you for 'following', they arrest you for trespass.

Violating a court order is illegal.
Trespassing is illegal.
There are probably a lot of things a person could do while following someone that would be illegal, like doing it nude. In that case they probably would arrest the perpetrator for public nudity, not 'following'.

Anyone know of any arrests made with the charge being following?
And if they make following illegal, maybe the country would be rid of mimes!
edit on 14-7-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)





If any rational members think that this post supports the contention that the act of 'following someone' is illegal, let me know.

The point I am making is that 'following' a person is legal to do.
If you break another law while 'following' someone, you are guilty of violating a different law.

The same can be said of eating birthday cake. If you do it while trespassing, you will be arrested on charges of trespassing, not charges of 'eating birthday cake'.
edit on 15-7-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
If any rational members think that this post supports the contention that the act of 'following someone' is illegal, let me know.


I do not even support that contention. I do support your endeavor to learn to read better though. No, just following someone is not illegal in and of itself. There are stipulations though, as even you pointed out, where there are things about following that are illegal.


The point I am making is that 'following' a person is legal to do.
If you break another law while 'following' someone, you are guilty of violating a different law.


Like trespassing?


The same can be said of eating birthday cake. If you do it while trespassing, you will be arrested on charges of trespassing, not charges of 'eating birthday cake'.
edit on 15-7-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)


So you are saying that when it comes to stalking, there are some things that are illegal about eating ice cream cake?



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   


So you are saying that when it comes to stalking, there are some things that are illegal about eating ice cream cake?

And some members want to critique other members reading ability and comprehension.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by habitforming
 


Wow... I dont even have the words to describe just how sad and pathetic your argument is.

Stalking requires a person to act in a manner that establishes a pattern of repeated behavior. You are wrong, everything I have posted is right. Your inability to actually read the law and understand the terms and elements is what makes you wrong.

It is not illegal to follow an individual...
It is not illegal to confront an individual...
It is not illegal to talk to an individual...

Zimmerman had one encounter with Martin, which is NOT stalking.

As far as walking onto property it depends on the type of property. If its an individual residence the person can be warned for trespassing and told to leave. If the person fails to leave after being notified they can be cited or arrested.

If its private property that is open to the public - like a parking lot to a store or parking lot to an apartment complex, non deck areas of apartment complexes, commons areas only the property owners, not the renters but the owners, can tell an individual they need to leave and failkure to comply can result in a trespassing citation / arrest.

Now that I have explained stalking and now trespassing to you, what else can I correct you on? As I have stated before if you are going to make an argument you need to know what the hell you are talking about. Feigning ignorance in an effort to deflect does not make you right.

I have told you you are wrong and supported it with facts / the law.
Other have told you you are wrong and supported it with facts / the law...
The State of Florida has now told you that you are wrong...



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy



So you are saying that when it comes to stalking, there are some things that are illegal about eating ice cream cake?

And some members want to critique other members reading ability and comprehension.


His issue is not reading nor comprehension.... It revolves around his inability to admit he is wrong. If you read his responses up to now, you will notice he is playing the word game. He is willingly ignoring the term "repeatedly" so he can try to save his own argument by redefining what the defintion of is is....

There is nothing illegal about following and individual....
There is nothing illegal about following a person in a car...
There is nothing illegal about making contact with a person...
There is nothing illegal about confronting an individual...

Stalking requires repeated behavior by one person towards another person, and both persons must be the same to establish the repeated behavior.

Again, key words he is choosing to ignore purposely.

Moving on to more important things I dont see how this prosecution is going to work... Some of the talking heads on tv have an interesting theory on the matter that does appear to make sense and accurately describe whats going on.

There is a massive racial issue attached to this thanks to the left wing media playing the race card without have any facts to support it.

The origional PA declined to prosecute because under Florida law Zimmerman is immune from prosecution under the SYG laws.

With the outrage and tension that followed by people who dont know the law / understand the law something needed to be done to appease those people.

Enter murder 2 charges - evidence which does not support that charge.

Since then we have the Defense attorney and now the PA in the case releasing documents / photos / evidence that places the prosecution into the "what the hell were you thinking by charging Zimmerman" box.

Now we have the FBI report that came out that shows there is nothing to support the accusation that Zimmerman acted on racial bias, which again stacks the deck against the PA.

The theory is this is all a show trial that will result in Zimmerman going free while giving the race baiters what they want. All of the info coming out that supports Zimmerman is actually coming from the PA's office and now the FBI.

The suggestion is this release of information, which is not normal at all coming from the PA, is designed to lower expectations of those who want to lynch Zimmerman. The documents, reports, photos, etc coming out all point towards justified defense. Doing it this way places the reaction back on the people who demanded justice. By releasing all the info the PA is stating they dont have a case, it allows the people to see why there is no case and in the end, any reaction towards charges being dismissed / not guilty is placed solely on the people and not the government / prosecution.

With that being said, and if indeed its true, is something I dont support. There is a reason its a court of law and not court of public opinion. The legal process should not be used against a person solely to appease segments of the population.
edit on 15-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 
Something that remains to be seen will be how community organizers and the media will handle the resulting dismissed case or not guilty verdict.

It wouldn't take much to stir up riots when either happens.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Xcathdra
 
Something that remains to be seen will be how community organizers and the media will handle the resulting dismissed case or not guilty verdict.

It wouldn't take much to stir up riots when either happens.



If it gets that far it will set the civil rights movement back a decade or so. To spen so much time fighting for equality under the law to all of a sudden abandon the law because of an outcome they dont like? It will require the media / talking heads who called for racial bias / charges to call for calm and respect of the judicial system.

Secondly people should take stock and understand prosecution cannot be based on personal opinion substituted for law.

Third if riots do break out it should be made clear the people rioting dont speak for their community. Again we will see people trying to exploit the racial divide. Its incumbent on all of us to tell those people no and to present a untied front.

Pressure should be applied to the idiots who made this racial issue in the first place to walk back their statements and call for calm and respect of the judicial system and the results, regardless of what that outcome is.

Reviewing the theory put forth from the talking heads it does appear to be going that way. That the PA is essentially signaling an upcoming failure in such a manner that it will soften the blow when it comes. The amount of information the PA has released that supports Zimmermans case is unusual in and of itself. Usually its the defense who plays that game...

I am curious when the motion to dismiss based on immunity will come....



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 




I am curious when the motion to dismiss based on immunity will come....

Statutory immunity based on Florida's Stand Your Ground law?



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Xcathdra
 




I am curious when the motion to dismiss based on immunity will come....

Statutory immunity based on Florida's Stand Your Ground law?


Correct.. Under SYG if its a defensive act, and to date, based on evidence, it very much appears to be, a person cannot be charged criminally or civiliy.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



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.


He absolutely did stalk him - but as it was just this one time it doesn't fit the definition of stalking we are all familiar with today

What he did do is follow, wait and watch for this young man until he finally decided to confront him. Who was the aggressor?

It's all going to be about intent. He could have just waited for the cops to show up - but he decided to take matters into his own hands - possibly (and I say possibly for a reason) forcing the young man to feel he needed to defend himself

In the end, in this situation - which of these two men really had the most to fear?
edit on 7/15/2012 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 




In the end, in this situation - which of these two men really had the most to fear?

In that they were both facing complete unknowns, that is a difficult question to answer.

If you follow the story that the evidence backs up, Martin probably had a lot of fear when Trayvon was on top of him on the sidewalk, pummeling Martin with his fists.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



Lets talk about judgement. Common sense. Isn't this what the law is meant to actually reflect?

Just about everyone here agrees that he likely should not have followed Martin. That he had no duty to do so, and really had to reason to do so outside of his affiliation with Neighborhood Watch. It is obvious to most here that it was a bad decision.

The 911 operator, too, identified this as a bad decision. She repeatedly told Zimmerman to not approach Martin. To wait for officers.

Why do so many people see this as an error in judgement? I think it is because the obvious conclusion of this interaction is going to be less than pleasant, with Zimmerman being completely incapable of doing anything other than talking to the individual, and possibly causing a physical altercation where there was none.

But to take this one step further....Zimmerman had a CCL. As such, he has an additional duty beyond that of a person without a CCL who is carrying a firearm. You are an officer...you likely have similar training. The whole reason for a firearm is to prevent physical confrontation. Why did Zimmerman ignore common sense, as adivsed by the 911 operator? And to follow that up, whey did he allow Martin to actually make physical contact with him, and create a situation where Martin is going to have access to his gun?

To me it shows INCREDIBLE negligence on Zimmermans part. Not pertaining to murder, but pertaining to manslaughter.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 




In the end, in this situation - which of these two men really had the most to fear?

In that they were both facing complete unknowns, that is a difficult question to answer.

If you follow the story that the evidence backs up, Martin probably had a lot of fear when Trayvon was on top of him on the sidewalk, pummeling Martin with his fists.


That's a fair point of view. The thing of it is - this is what Zimmerman claims happened - not what's actually known for sure

I think most reasonable people agree this wasn't premeditated - and I think we all agree it needs to go to trial

My own personal opinion is this: just because someone is afraid doesn't mean they have a legitimate reason to be afraid. We're all afraid sometimes - and we don't always react rationally

If there hadn't been a gun involved this would be a completely different story and we'd also have two versions of the story instead of just the one



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 





If there hadn't been a gun involved this would be a completely different story and we'd also have two versions of the story instead of just the one

It definitely would have been a completely different story. There may not have been two versions though. One possible outcome would have been that George Zimmerman would have been beaten to death by Trayvon Martin.
It happens.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
He absolutely did stalk him - but as it was just this one time it doesn't fit the definition of stalking we are all familiar with today.

This mindset is exactly what I am referring to when I say personal opinion cannot be substituted in place of the law. Under the law, Zimmerman did not stalk Martin. So while I understand what you are saying, it does not change the fact Zimmerman did not stalk Martin. It does not change the fact that in court the prosecution won't be able to use stalking as part of their case against Zimmerman simply because Zimmermans actions don't meet the required elements.

This is an important distinction for the sole purpose that people tend to get upset as to why somone was not charged under certain statutes.

Court of law, not public / personal opinion.


Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
What he did do is follow, wait and watch for this young man until he finally decided to confront him. Who was the aggressor?

Again you cannot use personal opinion in place of the law. It is not illegal to follow a person, talk to a person, confront a person etc etc etc. Secondly there is no evidence to suggest Zimmerman waited and watched for the sole purpose of confrontation. Even the lead detective who wrote the PC statement stated under oath they have no evidence that Zimmerman confronted Martin.

Under FL SYG laws, and this horse has been beaten to death, even an aggressor can use deadly force to protect himself if the other party escalates the situation that puts the aggressor in imminent fear of death / bodily harm. FL law in this area is the equivelant of Domestic Violence laws. An arrest is made based on the primary physical aggressor and not the person who started the situation. This is the primary reason states dropped that portion when they adopted their own syg laws.



Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
It's all going to be about intent. He could have just waited for the cops to show up - but he decided to take matters into his own hands - possibly (and I say possibly for a reason) forcing the young man to feel he needed to defend himself.

I agree to an extent on the intent part but only to the point of placing it into context based on the facts and not personal opinion. Again there is no evidence to support the claim that Zimmerman confronted Martin 1st. According to Zimmerman he was on his way back to his vehicle when he was confronted. The prosecution will be required to prove Zimmerman made contact / confronted Martin. That takes us back to the detective and the prelim hearing when he stated under oath, twice now (PC statement and then his testimony), that there is absolutely no evidence to support that Zimmerman confronted Martin.



Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
In the end, in this situation - which of these two men really had the most to fear?
edit on 7/15/2012 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)

Apparently both but again we have no eye witness / physical evidence to support Zimmerman confronting Martin. Secondly hindsight 20/20 cannot be used to challenge the use of force, by either party. Its what would a reasonable person do based on the situation at the time it occured and in this case was the action justified under FL law.

Totality of cirumstances...



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 





If there hadn't been a gun involved this would be a completely different story and we'd also have two versions of the story instead of just the one

It definitely would have been a completely different story. There may not have been two versions though. One possible outcome would have been that George Zimmerman would have been beaten to death by Trayvon Martin.
It happens.


I would love to see how that goes down. Some skinny teenager with no professional fighting experience is going to beat to death a wannabe cop that weighs twice as much and it the one with the element of surprise on his side.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join