FBI Finds No Racial Bias in Trayvon Martin Shooting

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by habitforming
Wow do you suck at this. Do I really need to explain why this response is retarded or do you think you can figure it out yourself, detective?

You are the one who made a false claim -

Originally posted by habitforming
Trayvon THOUGHT he was just walking home and had no idea some pissed off wannabe with a gun was now following him to find out what he was up to.

Martin knew someone was watching / following him nad his gf stated as much because she advised him to just leave / run away.

As a side note are you going to act like an adult anytime soon? All you have done is launched insults / attacks on people while doing your best to drag the topic off track.

Its Officer, not detective..
My question is valid and I would like for you to explain your response since Martin knew he was being watched / followed.

ABC - Source

ABC News was there exclusively as the 16-year-old girl told Crump about the last moments of the teenager's life. Martin had been talking to his girlfriend all the way to the store where he bought Skittles and a tea. The phone was in his pocket and the earphone in his ear, Crump said.

"He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man," Martin's friend said. "I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run, but he said he was not going to run."

So yeah... Martin knew he ws being watched and followed so please explain your statement.

I wish I could tell what your point is. Are you saying that Martin was at fault because he didn't RUN?

And a rape victim is at fault because she didn't run?

And a mugging victim is at fault because they didn't run?

What the hell are you saying?

Originally posted by Valhall
I wish I could tell what your point is. Are you saying that Martin was at fault because he didn't RUN?

Nope - not even close

Originally posted by Valhall
And a rape victim is at fault because she didn't run?

I have never made such statement / suggestion

Originally posted by Valhall
And a mugging victim is at fault because they didn't run?

I have never made such statement / suggestion.

Originally posted by Valhall
What the hell are you saying?

The response was directed at Habitforming and his thought process and this is evident if you read the post. I know you came across it since you quoted the entire thiing one post up. It also addresses the issue of people claiming Zimmerman confronted Martin when there is no evidence to support it. They also continually riase the issue of Zimmerman ignoring the 911 operator while at the same time Martin ignored his girlfriends advice to leave / run away.

Since we dont know who confronted who the counter argument could be Martin decided to follow Zimmerman while he was heading back to his vehicle. Instead of taking his girlfriends advice to run away maybe Martin ignored it and went after Zimmerman.

My point is based on the law and not their opinions. They are fixating on issues that are not relevant to the situation - like the whole stalking conversation. It does not matter what a person thinks it only matters what can be proven in court. When the lead detective falsifies his PC statement and then admits under oath they have absolutely no evidence to support the charge that Zimmerman confronted Martin, it creates a lot of other possibilities. All of which are ignored outright by people who want to use their personal opinions while ignoring the law simply because they dony like / agree with Zimmermans actions / choices.

Ignoring the law and the elements of a crime and substituting them with their personal opinion and an argument based on that opinion does not work. It usually results in a decision that is in complete contradiction to what they think should have occured (and stalking is not even remotely a possibility).

It might have been helpful if you read the thread in its entirety before asking me "what the hell" I am talking about As I have stated to Habit in other threads don't put words in my mouth because you didn't bother to follow along in the conversation.

Thats what the hell I am talking about.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by habitforming
Wow do you suck at this. Do I really need to explain why this response is retarded or do you think you can figure it out yourself, detective?

You are the one who made a false claim -

Originally posted by habitforming
Trayvon THOUGHT he was just walking home and had no idea some pissed off wannabe with a gun was now following him to find out what he was up to.

Martin knew someone was watching / following him nad his gf stated as much because she advised him to just leave / run away.

Seriously?
Can you even read?
Where did you post anything showing that Martin or his girlfriend knew that a "pissed off wannabe with a gun" was following him.

Its Officer, not detective..

I was being sarcastic because I am positive it is neither.

reply to post by butcherguy


Holy # the stupidity here is amazing.
Where did I say FOLLOWING WAS ILLEGAL??????
Find one single post where I wrote that. Find one.

You know there are some things that are illegal about taking things. Now go look up "taking" What? No hits?

reply to post by habitforming

Here is the important one that you missed at the end.

How following is related to the topic, I don't know.

Please stop missing it.

Originally posted by habitforming
reply to post by butcherguy

 

Holy # the stupidity here is amazing.
Where did I say FOLLOWING WAS ILLEGAL??????
Find one single post where I wrote that. Find one.

You know there are some things that are illegal about taking things. Now go look up "taking" What? No hits?

I just googled this phrase:

Crime of taking

The third hit on the first page related to theft.

That didn't happen with 'following'.

Let me know when you figure out that the examples that you insisted 'make' following a crime are actually specific crimes themselves.

I'll try again.
Following someone onto private property is a crime, you break a law against trespassing, not following. You do not have to follow someone to commit the crime of trespass.

Stalking is a crime. It does not require 'following'.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by habitforming

 

Here is the important one that you missed at the end.

How following is related to the topic, I don't know.

Please stop missing it.

I am not the one that brought it up.

reply to post by butcherguy


How many times do I need to say that I never said "following is a crime."
I am not sure why you need this crap repeated to you. The OTHER PERSON I WAS RESPONDING TO even gave up. What he said was wrong. There are things that are illegal about following. How you think that makes following a crime is beyond me.

How does one stalk without following?

Originally posted by habitforming
How does one stalk without following?

How does one stalk when there is no repeated pattern of behavior from one individual towards another individual taking place over a period of time?

You are the one who raised the stalking issue...
You are the one who stated a real cop should know what it is...
A real cop not only explained it to you he also provided you the link specifically to the Florida statute in question.
You're the one who ignored the law and continued down this road - no one else.

I didn't give up. I just came to the conclusion that your intent in the thread is to troll and call people names while playing word games while driving the thread topic so far off topic that GPS couldnt locate it.

Stalking is not an option in this case.... If it were the PA would have charged him with it so in essence the PA is also telling you that you are wrong.

Race is not an issue in this case according to the FBI which means the PA can't argue that it is.

There is no evidence to support the claim Zimmerman confronted Martin according to the lead detective.

With all of that please explain how the PA is going to be able to meet her burden on 2nd murder?

How does one stalk without following?

reply to post by habitforming

That's easy.
1. Sent unwanted gifts to a person repeatedly.
2. Make repeated unwanted phone calls to a person.
3. Make unwanted contact through internet social media repeatedly to a person.
4. Send unwanted emails repeatedly to a person.
5. Send unwanted letters through the mail repeatedly to a person.

These all can constitute stalking, none of them involve following.
Get it?

There are things that are illegal about following.

What are they specifically?

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by habitforming

 

Here is the important one that you missed at the end.

How following is related to the topic, I don't know.

Please stop missing it.

I am not the one that brought it up.

You are the one that refuses to drop it.
K?

reply to post by habitforming

There are things that are illegal about following. How you think that makes following a crime is beyond me.

I am glad that I am not bent enough upstairs that your statement here would begin to make any sort of sense.
I guess it made sense to you?

The first sentence says that there are things about following that are illegal. Something about the act of following is illegal ( I don't know what it is, but you are saying it).

Your second statement blames me for thinking that following is a crime. Let me remind you that I have been stressing that following is not ILLEGAL.

Motion to dismiss the Judge...

Zimmerman Legal Case Website

Motion to disqualify the Judge - PDF file

reply to post by Xcathdra


LOL, but it seems that no matter what, he will be put in jail fr something:

www.nytimes.com...

What is the statue of limitations on the decade old charges?

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Yeah I was thinking about that....

First its the murder charge by the state..... When it looked like that case was going nowhere we all of a sudden have the FBI doing a race / hate crime investigation... When that didnt work we have this lady coming forward making claims and not surprisingly she cant give the interviewers specifics.

As far as statute of limitations go it depends on the state, the crime and when that crime was committed.

In my state a misdemeanor crime is generally valid for 1 year from the date of occurence.
Felonies range from 0 years uo to 35 with a few not having any statute of limitations.

The limitation on prosecution as well as punishment if found guilty has to be based on the law at the time of occurence.

The BTK serial killer form Kansas missed the death penalty by a few years because of legal issues that challeneged the death penalty punishment.

6 and 8 years old at the time of the supposed occurence... I really can't see that being investigated. The other question is why now? If its such an issue why did they wait until Zimmerman was in a legal fight to bring it up?

This one thing the release of this info does do is supportsa the claim by the defense to have the judge removed from the case. Defense filed a motion to have the info provided by witness #9 withheld from the public because it had no bearing on the case and can pollute the jury pool so to speak. By rejecting the motion and allowing the info to be released, coupled with the judges comments at the last bail hearing, it almost appears as if the prosecution and the judge are intentionally trying to sabotage themselves.

Next step.... Gag order.

Since when does ATS believe the FBI?

Anyways you people don't understand hate crime legislation. If Zimmerman shot Trayvon JUST because he was black...then it would be a hate crime.

reply to post by HamrHeed

The universal view is that anyone who has white in them isn't colored.

.

In what world? The universal view is that you are what you appear to be. Hence why Obama is called black and not white.

It's also common to believe that white skin is evil,

It's also common to believe that brown skin is bad, ugly, criminal and stupid.

So the FBI does not think Zimmerman shot Martin because of racial motivations but apparently the little girl Zimmerman used to rape does.
Ruh Roh!

Originally posted by butcherguy

How does one stalk without following?

reply to post by habitforming

 

That's easy.
1. Sent unwanted gifts to a person repeatedly.
2. Make repeated unwanted phone calls to a person.
3. Make unwanted contact through internet social media repeatedly to a person.
4. Send unwanted emails repeatedly to a person.
5. Send unwanted letters through the mail repeatedly to a person.

These all can constitute stalking, none of them involve following.
Get it?

No because all of those involve a definition of following.
Hard to email a person unless you have their email address. Hard to have their email address without following to get that information but if you think so.

What are they specifically?

edit on 16-7-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

For starters, physically following me into my home is illegal.

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by habitforming

 

Here is the important one that you missed at the end.

How following is related to the topic, I don't know.

Please stop missing it.

I am not the one that brought it up.

You are the one that refuses to drop it.
K?

Are you sure about that?