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.

 

The Zimmerman Trial

page: 85
25
<< 82  83  84    86  87  88 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by WonderBoi
 

You are not on the side of justice so I will continue to call it as I see it. If someone assaults you and is trying to beat your head against the sidewalk then you have the right to defend yourself. Justice will be served when Zimmerman is free and rich from suing some manipulative media stations.

Also if you want to say I have a thug mentality then I will say you have the mentality of a perpetual adolescent (which is the vibe I've been getting).




posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


I don't think it's self incriminating, just him using the language he had trained to use. Made second nature by his desire to be in law enforcement at one point.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by WonderBoi
 


Once again, there is a legal definition of stalking, and George was doing no such thing. I really wish people woyld quit using that term until they know what it means, and not what they THINK it means. It does not mean following someone.

Again, repeatedly, George broke NO law, real or imagined, following Trayvon.

Just because someone thinks it, does not make it so.


What constitutes stalking?

Stalking is defined in the State of Florida as "willfully,
maliciously, and repeatedly following, harassing or
cyberstalking" another. Stalking behaviors can consist of
many things-actual physical following of a person,
continuously calling or texting, e-mailing, leaving notes or
sending letters, leaving or sending objects or
"gifts"...essentially, a pattern of unwanted behavior with
malicious intent. Stalking involves a pattern of behavior that
causes substantial emotional distress to a specific person
with no legitimate purpose.


www.sa18.state.fl.us...

"willfully, maliciously, AND repeatedly..."

"Stalking involes a PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR

None of that describes George's actions that night, so using the term "stalking" is a derogatory mischaracterization of his actions.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by WonderBoi
 


Now you are just flat out lying. He never said "do what."

Also you don't understand what stalking is. Following someone one time for a reason is not stalking. Stalking is when you repeatedly follow and harras the same person. This is not stalking.

Anyway no sense in talking to you further becausee you are biased and lying to confuse information on the case. It's a shame you made the thread instead of someone more reliable.
Following someone one time for a reason?
Does that even make sense? Like i was saying...if George wasn't STALKING Trayvon....none of this would have happened. In case you're confused, as to what stalking is, please read the definition below.

STALKING

Stalking is unwanted or obsessive attention by an individual or group toward another person. Stalking behaviors are related to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person or monitoring them.
Now, FACT IS....Zimmerman was STALKING Trayvon.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by WonderBoi
 


He didn't know his criminal past, he just knew he was acting suspicious. The same as how he didn't know the teen's age.

Also don't play the absurd "if" game. If zimmerman hand't got out blah blah. The same could be said about Trayvon: if he hadn't gotten suspended from school.

Also, it's not like Zimmerman just drove around looking for suspects, it was someone in a gated neighborhood that he'd never seen before and based on past experiences most of the time the people he was suspicious of were up to no good.

Also it could easily be argued he would have never gotten out if the dispatch hadn't repeatedly asked what the suspect was "doing now."



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 
There WAS a pattern of STALKING. 1st George pulled over and parked. Backed out of his spot. Followed Trayvon and parked, again. Got out of his vehicle and looked, followed, pursued, AGAIN. Seems like stalking to me.

If you were walking down the street, and a car was following you, what would you be thinking??? Did you ever, for a second think, MAYBE Trayvon felt in danger because a strange vehicle was FOLLOWING him???



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by WonderBoi
 


My god.. yes it does make sense. There is no sense in talking to you if you just ignore information/ are incapable of understanding it. If you follow someone one time, whether for a reason (such as keeping an eye on them) or for no reasonn at all, that IS NOT stalking and it is NOT ILLEGAL.

I love that I was going to get out the dictionary on you , but you beat me to it and STILL don't understand the definition. The key words are obssessive and harrassing. It does not fit the description of stalking and was not stalking. Anyone with any sense will tell you that.
edit on 2-7-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by WonderBoi
 


He didn't know his criminal past, he just knew he was acting suspicious. The same as how he didn't know the teen's age.

Also don't play the absurd "if" game. If zimmerman hand't got out blah blah. The same could be said about Trayvon: if he hadn't gotten suspended from school.

Also, it's not like Zimmerman just drove around looking for suspects, it was someone in a gated neighborhood that he'd never seen before and based on past experiences most of the time the people he was suspicious of were up to no good.

Also it could easily be argued he would have never gotten out if the dispatch hadn't repeatedly asked what the suspect was "doing now."
THEN HE SHOULD HAVE CALLED THE COPS AND WAITED FOR THEM TO GET THERE AND DO THEIR JOBS. IT WASN'T ZIMMERMAN'S PLACE TO TAKE MATTERS INTO HIS OWN HANDS! WHO GAVE HIM AUTHORITY? If he was undercover/off duty police officer, different story. But, dude was a nobody, with absolutely ZERO TRAINING; except that of MMA, which apparently didn't help his cause!

You act like he had the right to STALK someone because they looked "suspicious".



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by WonderBoi
 





That's when George decided to head back
to his vehicle and got snuck.


There, in your own words. He was heading back to his vehicle and got snuck.

Do you not realize that, in your own words, you made the person, Trayvon, that you are so defensive of, tbe aggressor?!

That, right there, gave George every right to use self defense.

That, right there, is the entire reasoning behind this trial!

Omgz.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by WonderBoi
 


Not stalking, it wasn't obsessive nor did it happen on more than one occasion. Stalkers KNOW their victims. You are just blathering nonsense now. I'd almost believ you just learned the word stalking and are excited to have another ridiculous argument to push. Derailing your own thread. You don't think the prosecution or police would have mentioned the word stalking ONE time if it could have been considered stalking?



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


Oh yeah I meant to call that out too. Haha he admitted Trayvon was the aggressor there, making Trayvon the only person to commit a crime that night.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by WonderBoi
 


My god.. yes it does make sense. There is no sense in talking to you if you just ignore information/ are incapable of understanding it. If you follow someone one time, whether for a reason (such as keeping an eye on them) or for no reasonn at all, that IS NOT stalking and it is NOT ILLEGAL.

I love that I was going to get out the dictionary on you , but you beat me to it and STILL don't understand the definition. The key words are obssessive and harrassing. It does not fit the description of stalking and was not stalking. Anyone with any sense will tell you that.
edit on 2-7-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)
No, it doesnt make sense because apparently you still don't get it; definition-n-all. The KEY point to stalking is NOT "obsessive and harrassing", but rather


may include following the victim in person or monitoring them
FOLLOWING OR MONITORING and Zimmerman did BOTH!

When you read, read in it's entirety. Don't pick and choose.
edit on 2-7-2013 by WonderBoi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by WonderBoi
 


Last time, he didn't stalk anyone, and he was waiting on the police. Martin should have called the police. As you said about zimmerman, the same applies to Martin, he wasn't anybody, not an mma fighter or an off duty cop, if he hadn't attacked Zimmerman he would still be alive.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Libertygal
 


Oh yeah I meant to call that out too. Haha he admitted Trayvon was the aggressor there, making Trayvon the only person to commit a crime that night.
STOP PUSHING YOUR STUPID AGENDA!


According to a 2002 report by the National Center for Victims of Crime, "Virtually any unwanted contact between two people [that intends] to directly or indirectly communicates a threat or places the victim in fear can be considered stalking" although in practice the legal standard is usually somewhat stricter.
Too bad the victim isn't here to describe how he felt, with Zimmerman STALKING him.

You're not allowed to follow people around. That's like, an unwritten rule.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by WonderBoi
 


I am not picking and choosing, in fact YOU are. You wish it was as simple as following someone once. In fact the key to stalking is the obsessive and harrassing part. Zimmerman didn't know the teen and you don't understand what stalking is. As I said before if it could be catergorized as stalking the prosecution would have.

Someone help me out here and explain what stalking is to this guy because he doesn't know.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by WonderBoi
reply to post by Libertygal
 
There WAS a pattern of STALKING. 1st George pulled over and parked. Backed out of his spot. Followed Trayvon and parked, again. Got out of his vehicle and looked, followed, pursued, AGAIN. Seems like stalking to me.

If you were walking down the street, and a car was following you, what would you be thinking??? Did you ever, for a second think, MAYBE Trayvon felt in danger because a strange vehicle was FOLLOWING him???


Trust me, legally, it means more than a few minutes if he went to the police and tried to file a stalking complaint. The pattern of behavior is over a period if time, days, weeks, or months, not minutes. He would have been laughed out of town had he tried to claim stalking.

You are being ridiculous, trying to fit it into your agenda, I hope you realize this.

Read it again, if you must.

Willful, malicious, and repeatedly. Displaying a pattern of behavior.


Willful, malicious, and repeatedly. Displaying a pattern of behavior.



Willful, malicious, and repeatedly. Displaying a pattern of behavior.

edit on 2-7-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by WonderBoi
 


Last time, he didn't stalk anyone, and he was waiting on the police. Martin should have called the police. As you said about zimmerman, the same applies to Martin, he wasn't anybody, not an mma fighter or an off duty cop, if he hadn't attacked Zimmerman he would still be alive.
So, why didn't he wait, this time? Why did he GET OUT OF HIS VEHICLE and pursue??? Lots of questions, VERY LITTLE "answers"; just a bunch of EXCUSES!



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by WonderBoi
 


I didn't know I was posting in a troll thread. I have no agenda you obviously do. Have a good night, I won't be talking with you anymore. As I said it's a shame you started the thread because you will surely be back.
I hope someone educates you on what stalking is sometime tonight (again as I already have several times).
edit on 2-7-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 




Willful, malicious, and repeatedly. Displaying a pattern of behavior.
DON'T FORGET TO ADD THIS

may include following the victim in person or monitoring them.


may include following the victim in person or monitoring them.


may include following the victim in person or monitoring them.
DID YOU GET THAT or should i REPEAT myself.

BTW: Didn't George do this:


repeatedly. Displaying a pattern of behavior.
He parked. Drove. Parked. Got out of his vehicle. Pursued. 3 different times would be considered "repeatedly".



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by WonderBoi
 





STOP PUSHING YOUR STUPID AGENDA!


Pot, meet kettle.
Ok, done trying to talk to you.

Between that and your "You can't follow someone, it's an unspoken rule" thing, it is easy to see where you are coming from.

Not really going there witcha, brah.

Enjoy arguing with the few people left that will bother to.

Correction:




You're not allowed to follow people around. That's like, an unwritten
rule.



edit on 2-7-2013 by Libertygal because: correction

edit on 2-7-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 82  83  84    86  87  88 >>

log in

join