The Zimmerman Trial

Originally posted by Grimpachi

Originally posted by Euphony

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by Euphony

 

Following is not an act of aggression it isn’t considered stalking in Florida I already posted the link to FL statutes showing that.

Throwing a punch is definitive of being the aggressor. Maybe you do not care what the law is on this matter but your opinion doesn’t matter in court only the letter of the law.

Florida laws: In Florida chloroform is an acceptable baby sitter too.

Let's talk common sense.

Following someone (stalking someone) IS most definitely an act of aggression.

AS I said following is not a crime and I stated I already posted the statutes of stalking and FYI none apply to Zimmerman following.

Your common sense imperative isn’t going to hold up in court and common sense dictates following someone is not an act of aggression your entire premise is a fail in that respect.

So to recap

Following is not an act of aggression.

There was no stalking so it does not apply

So, lets say Grimpachi was walking to a friends house... It's dark, raining and you're the only person around. All of a sudden there's some creeper following you, not walking somewhere or just walking by you, but someone who hustled to get behind you then slowly followed at a distance.

You wouldn't feel threatened? Of course you would. You would feel like this creep is threatening your safety.

The only thing I keep thinking is that It's too bad Zimmerman couldn't have been killed instead.

(Disclaimer: I'm a 'cracka')

reply to post by Euphony

The only reason TMartin would have reacted to Zimmerman is if he felt threatened.

The trial has already destroyed that narrative. TMartin if he was afraid had ample time to get in his home, call the police, even get his dad. At this point in the trial it has been shown that TMartin was angry not afraid. The kind of emotion you would expect from someone who assaults someone.


Edit to add

in response to your above post I think what I already wrote still applies.

I think Martin felt safe being close to home and figured he could at least get a sucker punch in then if things went bad he could run inside and hide from the cops. I say this because I have seen kids his age do it before.

Here in the UK this obviously hasn't had as much coverage as it has stateside, but there has been a fair amount of discussion about the allegedly racial element to this incident. However, that discussion has been more about why this has been framed as a racial incident. Unless I'm missing something, the racial element is predicated on two simple things...

1. A white(ish) man shot and killed a black man

2. There is a suspicion that this white(ish) man targeted Martin as he was black.

In my book, an altercation (even fatal) between people of two different races is not necessarily a racial incident - although it's obviously worthy of investigation. Similarly, the accepted narrative seems to be that Zimmerman was 'patrolling' a mixed race, gated community. On that basis, surely any unfamiliar face would be worthy of investigation to someone considering themselves a 'watchman'.

I know there was a doctored NBC 911 call that framed this incident racially, but outside of that - is there any accepted or alleged evidence that suggests the death of Trayvon Martin was anything more than a simple, non racial incident in which a young man sadly lost his life?

For the record, I think both the prosecution and defense cases have potential merit - depending on the evidence to which we're currently not privy.

Originally posted by olaru12


After following this thread for 58 pages; I see a lot of emotional investment by ATS members in this case.

Why? Is it the 2nd amendment rights that some feel threatened? Racism? What?

Would there have been this kind of reaction if Martin had of been a white kid? I wonder what would have been the reaction if Zimmerman had of been a black man and shot a white kid under the same circumstances.

My bet is that this thread would have been completely different.

something to ponder....

I have wondered the same thing. Why are people getting emotionally invested in this case? Sure, by now I have an opinion on what probably happened, but if the jury thinks different, hey they were there. They know better than me. If it is proven that Zimmerman didn't kill Martin because of his race the ones wanting a race war still have thousands of cases to choose from. Hate crimes happen ten times a day, everyday.
But for some odd reason no one seems to care if a black person kills a white person. But I digress. As for gun rights, our guns aren't going anywhere. I think everyone needs to take a deep breath count to ten and maybe enjoy the day. It's a beautiful day where I am

Originally posted by Euphony
The only thing I keep thinking is that It's too bad Zimmerman couldn't have been killed instead.

:shk: The only think I keep thinking is that it's too bad this happened at all.
Too bad they both didn't get through this and learn from their mistakes.
I can't imagine thinking as you do ... wishing death on someone like that.

reply to post by MrWendal

It's creepy. It's not illegal. What IS illegal is assaulting someone.
Just because someone is walking behind you doesn't give you the
right to assault them. Ya' know??

Zimmerman Trial - 20 Questions for ATSers
I got curious so I started a thread asking questions. Enjoy

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by MrWendal

 

It's creepy. It's not illegal. What IS illegal is assaulting someone.
Just because someone is walking behind you doesn't give you the
right to assault them. Ya' know??

I agree, I am not suggesting Trayvon had a right to assault Zimmerman. I am suggesting that Trayvon could have perceived Zimmerman as a threat. Is that not fair to say?

Originally posted by MrWendal
I am not suggesting Trayvon had a right to assault Zimmerman. I am suggesting that Trayvon could have perceived Zimmerman as a threat. Is that not fair to say?

It's possible he saw him as a threat. Or he saw him as a target.
Or he saw him as something else entirely. We don't know what he thought.
What ever his thoughts ... if he attacked Zimmerman, then the law says he (Martin) was the perp.
Don't get me wrong. I think Zimmerman is guilty of extreme stupidity.
And the prosecution probably could have gotten a guilty plea if they had offered him Manslaughter.
But as it is ... he isn't guilty of Murder 2. I'm thinking the prosecution screwed up.

Originally posted by MrWendal

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by MrWendal

 

It's creepy. It's not illegal. What IS illegal is assaulting someone.
Just because someone is walking behind you doesn't give you the
right to assault them. Ya' know??

I agree, I am not suggesting Trayvon had a right to assault Zimmerman. I am suggesting that Trayvon could have perceived Zimmerman as a threat. Is that not fair to say?

I think that is a fair question and they may explore that at the trial however the states star witness seemed to describe an angry teen not a frightened one.

If he was so frightened why didn’t he go home, call the police or get his dad. If I was the defense and the prosecution tried to introduce that narrative I do not think it would be hard to shoot it down with the testimony we have heard so far.

Originally posted by Euphony

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Euphony

 

What do you mean not even close? It's fact. He didn't know what Zimmerman was doing. Even if he thought he was following him why did he wait for him rather than going in his house when ge got there? It didn't give him the right to beat zimmerman up. He was followed because he ran. He was probably being suspicious to catch zimmermans attention. After all he was busted with burgler tools and women's jewelry, so for all we know he was casing houses.

Being suspicious = being black?

WORLD'S BIGGEST FACEPALM

Why? Why,God,why?!?!? You want a race war, don't you?

Ok. Well keep this simple

Being suspicious = standing in the rain looking in windows that aren't yours

If you think this is because Martin was black then you are the racist

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

No you don't understand Zimmerman was never the aggressor.

Oh really? I'll assume that you know this because you actually have evidence that Trayvon started the physical confrontation, not just because you believe what Zimmerman's claims right?

He didn't even really follow Martin as he immediately lost track of him.

What do you mean he didn't really follow Trayvon Martin? Either he did follow him or not and it's pretty darn evident that he did. What's very interesting is that on the recording when Zimmerman was specifically asked not to follow Trayvon, and when the dispatcher recommended that police meet at the letterboxes, away from the direction in which Martin was heading, what did Zimmerman say? He said that police must call him as he didn't want to meet police at the letterboxes which was clearly in the opposite direct of where Trayvon was heading. Why is this? Considering this was clearly the safer option to meet police? Maybe... just maybe because Zimmerman didn't want to lose Trayvon?

hmm.

Zimmerman will go free as all evidence suggests Martin made it home but rather than going in he waited on Zimmerman,

Zimmerman will go free I agree, based on this idea that he was fearing for his life when he shot this kid and that's really it, he bit off more than he could chew and this was supposedly reason for him to shoot. He will not go free because of evidence pointing to the fact Trayvon was the aggressor or threat because... there is none. All you have is Zimmermans testimony and that's it. You're repeating to yourself that he didn't start the confrontation because you firmly believe his testimony but you really have nothing else.

you don't have to prove facts?

Facts you say? You seem to have none.

reply to post by Euphony


Obviously you are letting the media do all your thinking for you evidenced by you thinking chloroform had anything to do with the Anthony case. Furthermore Martin was the initial aggressor.

reply to post by Euphony


Well that's not the same situation, but I wouldn't turn and star beating them. I'd probably yell and ask what they wanted, then call 911, then try to run to safety. Martin didn't do any of those things. Like I said though that's a fantasy scenario as Zimmerman didn't follow behind Trayvon as yoou suggest.

reply to post by Euphony


I didn't say that it was intentional. Nor did I say being black = being suspicious, you said that.

reply to post by MrWendal


Actually it is.. if a cop did anything like arrest or assault you following them for a short bit (as long as it's not repeatedly as it would then be stalking) he could be prosecuted.

Also I would like to point out the great irony of this thread in the fact that you are a ron paul supporter that doesn't support an individuals rights. I can guarantee you Paul and I would be in agreement on this case.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
I'd probably yell and ask what they wanted, then call 911, then try to run to safety. Martin didn't do any of those things.

So just because you would react a certain way means everyone should react in that same way?

I got to tell you, I am 40 years old now. If I am walking down a street minding my own business, and another person begins following me, I'm not gonna run. I am not calling 911. I would probably ask what you wanted, but if I view you as a threat, I will get off the first punch and take you out. At the end of the day, my safety is what matters to me. I'd rather knock you out and sort the details out later.

Like I said though that's a fantasy scenario as Zimmerman didn't follow behind Trayvon as yoou suggest.

That is simply not true. Zimmerman DID follow Trayvon by his own admission. In Zimmerman's 911 call he says he is following Trayvon. Did he stop following? He claims he did, but that does not change the fact that at first he was following Trayvon.

reply to post by KingIcarus


Well it wasn't a racial issue from Zimmermans side (the white/hispanic guy), but may have been on the side of the teen that was shot as it came out in court that he called Ziimmerman a "cracka" to his friend. The media did this big blitzkrieg of false and misleading info to stir the race pot when this happened and went as far as editing tapes to make zimmerman sound racist. It's since been disproven.

Originally posted by Grimpachi

I think that is a fair question and they may explore that at the trial however the states star witness seemed to describe an angry teen not a frightened one.

Because he called George a "creepy-ass cracker"? So, what does that make George with his "#inh punks" and "assholes" comments about someone he'd never interacted with before in his life?

Originally posted by Grimpachi
If he was so frightened why didn’t he go home, call the police or get his dad.

For starters, he knew his dad was out at that time, and I'm sure he wouldn't have wanted to risk leading Zimmerman right to his temporary home when he had no idea what his problem was yet. As for phoning the police, maybe if Florida leo's were a bit more approachable to black male teens, he might have considered that, but like most people who live in the real world know, sometimes phoning the police can land you in far more trouble than not phoning them, particularly if you belong to certain demographics.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by MrWendal

 

Actually it is.. if a cop did anything like arrest or assault you following them for a short bit (as long as it's not repeatedly as it would then be stalking) he could be prosecuted.

Also I would like to point out the great irony of this thread in the fact that you are a ron paul supporter that doesn't support an individuals rights. I can guarantee you Paul and I would be in agreement on this case.

edit on 29-6-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

I do believe in individual rights. I do believe in gun rights. I believe in the right to self defense.

Just because I do not believe this specific case is self defense does not mean I do not believe in the right to defend yourself.

Like I have said before, if I go out and pick a fight and in that fight I am getting my butt whooped, I can not shoot my way out of it and claim self defense. Self defense does not apply when I am the person who provokes, instigates, or escalates the situation.