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.
Originally posted by butcherguy
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.
For starters, physically following me into my home is illegal.
Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by habitforming
There you go again.
Making things up.
I didn't call you crazy.
I just pointed out that two consecutive sentences in your post contradict each other.
Originally posted by butcherguy
It is called trespassing.
If you call the police, they will arrest the person on charges of trespassing, not following.
A person can follow you home, videotaping you the whole way, right up to your property line. If they cross the property line uninvited, they are guilty of trespass, not following. It is pretty simple.
It is so simple that I am confident that you understand it.
So I will stop feeding you now, Little Trollkin.edit on 16-7-2012 by butcherguy because: Spelling
Originally posted by rebellender
reply to post by habitforming
Autumnal, hows it going? how are you, I have missed our banter, troll feeding and the like, what have you been up to?
4-6-2012 wow what a coincidence?edit on 16-7-2012 by rebellender because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Xcathdra
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.edit on 16-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I think they are taking exception to the 16 and 18 year old incident. But still.....
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
....this girl says she "felt powerless to stop it". What does that mean? How do you feel powerless? A girl that is 2 years younger than a boy is often physically larger and stronger than the boy.
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
This charge smells fishy. Not only that, it is prejudicial to the case at hand Even worse, the charge is a BS charge. I have yet to meet an adult woman or man who thinks that the charge has any validity....they were just kids.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
The same goes with her charge about Zimmerman and his family being racists towards blacks who dont act white.
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Xcathdra
If they don't make him kill himself in the meantime.
He looks horrible. You can see that the whole thing has taken a toll on him.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
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.
Originally posted by Valhall
If you're going to ignore what he has already admitted to doing then it is fruitless to argue with you.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
Originally posted by Valhall
If you're going to ignore what he has already admitted to doing then it is fruitless to argue with you.
I didnt ignore nor miss anything that occured. What you and the other are missing is the legal definition of stalking. I can post the info again or you can scroll back and find where I posted and explained it. Zimmerman did not stalk Martin - period.
The responses to my post from you ignored the previous posts with Habitforming. He is the one who brought up stalking and after I got done giving him the link to Florida Law he still wants to argue Zimmerman was stalking.
As I stated then and now, you dont get to just use your own personal opinion in place of the law simply because the law doesnt fit the particular argument / agenda.
There was no stalking involved...
However if you want to go down this road then why are you ignoring Zimmerman's other comments, like self defense, that h felt in fear of his life, that Martin was bashing his head into the ground etc etc etc...
In for a penny in for a pound...
Again you guys dont get to pick anbd choose what facts best support your agenda...
Court of Law, not public opinion.edit on 17-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Valhall
I'm ignoring his other statements because they contradict the evidence.
Originally posted by Valhall
These admissions I point out coincide with the evidence.
Originally posted by Valhall
I don't care about the legal definition of stalking. If I'm walking down a residential street or sidewalk at night and someone begins to follow me (actually drives and then gets out of their car to follow me, which Zimmerman admits) and it feels scary and then they approach me and further threaten me, then I am a victim of intimidation. Now, add to that the person that is doing this to me is packing heat, and you have a volatile situation brought on by the person who stalked me down - by definition, not legal vernacular.
Originally posted by Valhall
Don't play word games. If I'm a woman walking down a dark street or sidewalk and being followed by a strange man who approaches me, I consider that to be stalked. Doesn't matter if your gimped up legal definition requires he did it more than once. AT THAT INSTANCE I feel stalked. And if I pull my pepper spray, nunchucks or brass knuckles to defend myself because I feel bodily threatened and the person stalking me is packing heat and pulls a gun and kills me, they are going to get charged with manslaughter at the least.
Originally posted by Valhall
It appears the only difference in this almost definitive conclusion is that Martin was not a woman and only used his bodily force - no pepper spray, just physical defense.edit on 7-17-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Xcathdra
If they don't make him kill himself in the meantime.
He looks horrible. You can see that the whole thing has taken a toll on him.
Originally posted by habitforming
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Xcathdra
If they don't make him kill himself in the meantime.
He looks horrible. You can see that the whole thing has taken a toll on him.
Poor guy.
How is Trayvon looking?
I hear this was all pretty rough on him too.