Zimmerman_Martin Trial

[UNT90]

784.048.1.a sure is interesting.

Edit: Again, not "emotional". Just reading comprehension.

Honestly dont know if you are referring to my reading conprehension or your own, so I'll offer the following explanation:

Notice that the elements for any type of stalking in Florida are "willfully, maliciously, AND repeatedly follows, harassed, or cyberstalks"

Unless there is any documentation of Zimmerman following Martin on a previous occasion, what happened that night was simply not stalking.

Words mean something in laws, and the AND in that sentence means it has to be a patterned behavior. It wasn't.

[JesseMartin]

Funny, after I asked about "Lean" here one of my friends put up a description on Facebook. I sounds absolutely disgusting...ugghh...like MD 20/20 mixed with cough syrup or something. Either way, I think MGT's right and there was some jazz-hands practicing going on that night, which would seem threatening to just about anyone.

[MeanGreenTexan]

...until you read about what it is and realize it doesn't apply here:

Aggravated stalking:

willful, malicious and repeated following or harassing another with credible threats with the intent to place person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury;

or willfully, maliciously, repeatedly follows or harasses minor under 16;

or after injunction for protection or any court-imposed prohibition of conduct, knowingly, willfully, maliciously and repeatedly follows or harasses another person.

Honestly dont know if you are referring to my reading conprehension or your own, so I'll offer the following explanation:

Notice that the elements for any type of stalking in Florida are "willfully, maliciously, AND repeatedly follows, harassed, or cyberstalks"

Unless there is any documentation of Zimmerman following Martin on a previous occasion, what happened that night was simply not stalking.

Words mean something in laws, and the AND in that sentence means it has to be a patterned behavior. It wasn't.

I was referring to my own.

Here are the two I'm talking about (which I clearly pointed out):

784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.—

(1) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.

AND

782.04 Murder.—

(1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:

2. When committed by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:

n. Aggravated stalking

So again, we're arguing a semantic point of the word, "repeatedly", which according to FL law, constitutes "aggravated stalking" VS just regular "stalking". Does 2X in one night justify "repeatedly"? I would say yes. You may say no... unless this was your child, right?

1. sitting in his car watching Martin (when he called 911 the first time). This counts when talking about pervs watching women/kids doesn't it? I think it would count here.

2. actually pursuing him on foot, armed. This clearly fits the definition above.

I'm going to gracefully bow out of this and move on. I won't convince anyone differently than how they already think. I was just trying to defend why I think the way I do. For me, I guess it's more about common sense and big picture rather than the details. If the details are what excuses the killing, then that is sad.

[Censored by Laurie]

So...Florida still sucks, huh?

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

Let's say ZImmerman hadn't killed Martin. They had their little slap and tickle and the law shows up. By some stretch of the legal imagination, prosecutors attempt to slap an aggravated stalking charge on Zimmerman.

Based on the events of one night in a first time meeting, it would be impossible to convict Zimmerman of agggravated stalking.

Aggravated stalking laws were enhanced over the last decade to cover repeated stalking over a period of time. Many original stalking laws were misdemeanors. Aggravated stalking was a way to upgrade charges against those who really intended to prey upon a certain victims.

That is a universe different than two strangers struggling for the first time.

Aggravated stalking would have been more difficult to stick than even the ridiculous second degree murder charge the prosecutors attempted.

You have to face reality. They couldn't even get the manslaughter charge that they threw in at the last minute to stick.

So many people want this to be more than what is it - an unfortunate tragedy. And, the only reason they want it to be that way is that Trayvon Martin was black and George Zimmerman is not.

Lost, as always, in all of this is the same type of outrage for black on black and black on white crime. People only get all up in arms if a non-black kills a black.

Why?

Why is it no big deal when a black kills another black?

Why does it cause no waves when a black kills a white or other non-black...like a "half-Hispanic" ZImmerman?

Every murder should be a big deal. But, until Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and their ilk start showing up at funerals and trials of non-black victims of black murderers crying racism, then their charges of racism here and elsewhere are hollow to me.

If non-blacks killing blacks is reason to scream racism, then the reverse should also be true,

Edited July 15, 2013 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

[RAGEMASTER5000]

Let's say ZImmerman hadn't killed Martin. They had their little slap and tickle and the law shows up. By some stretch of the legal imagination, prosecutors attempt to slap an aggravated stalking charge on Zimmerman.

Based on the events of one night in a first time meeting, it would be impossible to convict Zimmerman of agggravated stalking.

Aggravated stalking laws were enhanced over the last decade to cover repeated stalking over a period of time. Many original stalking laws were misdemeanors. Aggravated stalking was a way to upgrade charges against those who really intended to prey upon a certain victims.

That is a universe different than two strangers struggling for the first time.

Aggravated stalking would have been more difficult to stick than even the ridiculous second degree murder charge the prosecutors attempted.

You have to face reality. They couldn't even get the manslaughter charge that they threw in at the last minute to stick.

So many people want this to be more than what is it - an unfortunate tragedy. And, the only reason they want it to be that way is that Trayvon Martin was black and George Zimmerman is not.

Lost, as always, in all of this is the same type of outrage for black on black and black on white crime. People only get all up in arms if a non-black kills a black.

Why?

Why is it no big deal when a black kills another black?

Why does it cause no waves when a black kills a white or other non-black...like a "half-Hispanic" ZImmerman?

Every murder should be a big deal. But, until Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and their ilk start showing up at funerals and trials of non-black victims of black murderers crying racism, then their charges of racism here and elsewhere are hollow to me.

If non-blacks killing blacks is reason to scream racism, then the reverse should also be true,

I think it's more about an adult shooting a child. If a 13 year old (oops 17) can make a man fear for his life, despite the man having taken self defense classes, should that man be among the public?

Edit: Also the Adult had a gun and still couldn't keep calm.

Edited July 15, 2013 by RAGEMASTER5000

[Censored by Laurie]

Let's say ZImmerman hadn't killed Martin. They had their little slap and tickle and the law shows up. By some stretch of the legal imagination, prosecutors attempt to slap an aggravated stalking charge on Zimmerman.

Based on the events of one night in a first time meeting, it would be impossible to convict Zimmerman of agggravated stalking.

Aggravated stalking laws were enhanced over the last decade to cover repeated stalking over a period of time. Many original stalking laws were misdemeanors. Aggravated stalking was a way to upgrade charges against those who really intended to prey upon a certain victims.

That is a universe different than two strangers struggling for the first time.

Aggravated stalking would have been more difficult to stick than even the ridiculous second degree murder charge the prosecutors attempted.

You have to face reality. They couldn't even get the manslaughter charge that they threw in at the last minute to stick.

So many people want this to be more than what is it - an unfortunate tragedy. And, the only reason they want it to be that way is that Trayvon Martin was black and George Zimmerman is not.

Lost, as always, in all of this is the same type of outrage for black on black and black on white crime. People only get all up in arms if a non-black kills a black.

Why?

Why is it no big deal when a black kills another black?

Why does it cause no waves when a black kills a white or other non-black...like a "half-Hispanic" ZImmerman?

Every murder should be a big deal. But, until Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and their ilk start showing up at funerals and trials of non-black victims of black murderers crying racism, then their charges of racism here and elsewhere are hollow to me.

If non-blacks killing blacks is reason to scream racism, then the reverse should also be true,

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

I think it's more about an adult shooting a child. If a 13 year old can make a man fear for his life, despite the man having taken self defense classes, should that man be among the public?

Trayvon was 17, not 13. And, be realistic. Teenagers steal and kill as well as adults. And, at the age of 17, some can be tried as adults if the offenses they commit are serious enough.

[UNT90]

I was referring to my own.

Here are the two I'm talking about (which I clearly pointed out):

784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.

(1) As used in this section, the term:

(a) Harass means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.

AND

782.04 Murder.

(1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:

2. When committed by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:

n. Aggravated stalking

So again, we're arguing a semantic point of the word, "repeatedly", which according to FL law, constitutes "aggravated stalking" VS just regular "stalking". Does 2X in one night justify "repeatedly"? I would say yes. You may say no... unless this was your child, right?

1. sitting in his car watching Martin (when he called 911 the first time). This counts when talking about pervs watching women/kids doesn't it? I think it would count here.

2. actually pursuing him on foot, armed. This clearly fits the definition above.

I'm going to gracefully bow out of this and move on. I won't convince anyone differently than how they already think. I was just trying to defend why I think the way I do. For me, I guess it's more about common sense and big picture rather than the details. If the details are what excuses the killing, then that is sad.

We are not arguing semantics.

Repeatedly means more than one event.

[RAGEMASTER5000]

Trayvon was 17, not 13. And, be realistic. Teenagers steal and kill as well as adults. And, at the age of 17, some can be tried as adults if the offenses they commit are serious enough.

Typo. Thanks for the correction. Still stand with the question though. Do you think an armed man who is deathly afraid of 17 year old kids is safe to be in public

[UNT90]

Trayvon was 17, not 13. And, be realistic. Teenagers steal and kill as well as adults. And, at the age of 17, some can be tried as adults if the offenses they commit are serious enough.

17 is an adult in Texas for criminal prosecution purposes.

[UNT90]

Typo. Thanks for the correction. Still stand with the question though. Do you think an armed man who is deathly afraid of 17 year old kids is safe to be in public

Not really buying that it was a typo, but also don't blame you for thinking he was 13, as all the media showed in the initial lynching campaign were pictures of Trayvon Martin as a 12 or 13 year old.

And if it was actually a typo, and you seriously don't think a 17 year old could whip the crap out of an out of shape 30 year old, I encourage you to sneak into fall football practice and take a gander at some of our 18 year old "children".

I promise all of them could whoop the crap out of you and I.

Edited July 15, 2013 by UNT90

[RAGEMASTER5000]

Not really buying that it was a typo, but also don't blame you for thinking he was 13, as all the media showed in the initial lynching campaign were pictures of Trayvon Martin as a 12 or 13 year old.

And if it was actually a typo, and you seriously don't think a 17 year old could whip the crap out of an out of shape 30 year old, I encourage you to sneak into fall football practice and take a gander at some of our 18 year old "children".

I promise all of them could whoop the crap out of you and I.

Well we can never really know if it was a typo or not. You're kinda proving my point. What sane person would approach a 17 year old kid they're afraid of after being advised not to. Then he picks a fight with the kid. Is that a guy you want hanging around?

edit: I tip my hat to you for focusing on the supposed "typo". I would have done the same. You're a gentleman and a scholar.

Edited July 15, 2013 by RAGEMASTER5000

[emmitt01]

Terrible, terrible comparison.

Would your daughter utter a racial slur in her phone call and attack the guy following her?

Also, you say Zimmerman supporters like you either have to be a supporter of Martin, or else you are a supporter of Zimmerman.

How about supporting the truth?

Many on here were quick to point out that Zimmerman had to be a racist because he described Martin as a black male to the dispatcher. Of course, NBC edited the 911 tape to make it appear Zimmerman brought up the race of Martin. Even if he had, you dang well know that race is an identifier and every time you checked out with a suspicious person while you were on patrol, you notified dispatch of the race and sex of who you were out with.

Whole lot of truth coming from NBC.

Then everyone wanted to assume Zimmerman was on top of Martin because that's what the news media told them to assume. Those same people are on here now admitting that wasn't the case, but still trying to justify their point of view by saying "well, Zimmerman followed him, so it's his fault." No one wants to admit they are wrong .

Then these same people seized on the news reports that Zimmerman didn't have any injuries the night of the assault. The evidence CLEARLY showed this to be inaccurate.

Now you are taking to comparing what happened to a pedophile abducting a young girl. Pretty unbelievable, especially from someone who should know the law. Pedophiles are into pre-pubescents, which Martin wasn't. Prepubescents don't physically attack their offenders, which the jury, you know, the ones who saw ALL the evidence, clearly believe Martin did.

Oh, and pedophiles don't call the police department to tell the police they are following their victim.

Other than that, your post is..... Dead on?

Oh, and if I am what you call a Zimmerman supporter, I guess that makes you a Martin supporter, because it's just so last generation to support, oh, I don't know, the truth?

I'm thoroughly confused. Are we arguing the merits of my post or am I now to defend the actions of the media as well because it fits your case?

And why when you read the words "Zimmerman supporters" do you automatically think I'm talking about you? You should know quite well I have no problem calling anyone out by name...I believe in specificity like that. Or is this just more convenient to your assumption that there are only two sides to this issue, those that believe in "the truth" and those that want to cry racism? Funny, I thought there was the third option of being one who realizes that NOBODY other than George Zimmerman knows exactly what happened prior to Trayvon Martin getting the better of George Zimmerman in a physical altercation. Tell me, where was the eye witness testimony that Martin was the initial aggressor? That's right, there wasn't any.

I'll leave the assumptions about Zimmerman's and Martin's mental state, level of intoxication, racist feelings, etc to greater minds than mine. Sure, I can throw out wild conjecture like anyone else but I recognize it as such and don't feel the need to assume that I'm wise enough to uncover a grand right wing conspiracy.

The guy was found not guilty because the prosecution didn't have a strong case. No more, no less. I seem to have misplaced Al Sharpton and Brother Jesse's phone numbers so I won't be fielding any further questions on their behalf. Sorry.

[EagleGreen]

I understand the verdict (Zimmerman possibly didn't do anything illegal). No one knows, except Zimmerman, what actually happened that night during the time of hanging up with 911 and when the "guys with flashlights" showed up. That time period is all up to interpretation. Zimmerman attorneys presented the better story.

Pretty sad case to me because it means that, at least in Florida, you can legally push someone to the point of them whipping your ass and then you can shoot them. Not good.

I think it would be nice if we lived in a world where Zimmerman could have given Martin a ride home to keep him out of the rain.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

Typo. Thanks for the correction. Still stand with the question though. Do you think an armed man who is deathly afraid of 17 year old kids is safe to be in public

It's a matter of physical ability.

In the Mean Green Bowl this year, I scored the first touchdown when my peer group of over 40s was covering me. After that, they stuck that 15 year old kid on me and I didn't get another catch all day.

Trayvon Martin at 6'1" and svelte probably got up on the pudgy Zimmerman pretty quickly. And, certainly, being taller, Trayvon had a longer reach than Zimmerman.

The whole thing is a tragedy. I think Zimmerman was doing what he thought was right by protecting his neighborhood on a regular basis. I think Martin was just out to get some snacks to even up his buzz, which isn't out of the norm either.

I think both had chips on their respective shoulders about the world as they perceived it. If we believe the friend girl testimony, Martin was suspicious of "crackers." Zimmerman, we know, was suspicious of unfamilar kids in the neighborhood based on past crimes in the neighborhood,

Unfortunately, these two humans with chips on their shoulder about one thing or another had a tense meeting. I think Martin probably did get up on Zimmerman and start whaling on him. And, at that point, I think Zimmerman panicked and shot Martin.

I think both were amped up by emotions fed by the chips on the shoulder.

It's well documented that I'm not a fan of some of the contributing factors. I'm not for marijuana legalization, and I'm not for everyone being able to carry around firearms. And, I'm never a fan or race-baiting media and politicians.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

I think it would be nice if we lived in a world where Zimmerman could have given Martin a ride home to keep him out of the rain.

Exactly, If either would have taken the time to just talk to one another instead of letting their personal suspicions run loose.

[KRAM1]

Exactly, If either would have taken the time to just talk to one another instead of letting their personal suspicions run loose.

Yep!

Edit: But, have you seen the dialog here on GMG.Com between folks who claim to all be UNT fans? ha!

Edited July 15, 2013 by KRAM1

[UNTFan23]

I understand the verdict (Zimmerman possibly didn't do anything illegal). No one knows, except Zimmerman, what actually happened that night during the time of hanging up with 911 and when the "guys with flashlights" showed up. That time period is all up to interpretation. Zimmerman attorneys presented the better story.

Pretty sad case to me because it means that, at least in Florida, you can legally push someone to the point of them whipping your ass and then you can shoot them. Not good.

I think it would be nice if we lived in a world where Zimmerman could have given Martin a ride home to keep him out of the rain.

And if Zimmerman did not have a gun with him and had not shot Trayvon it the possible that Zimmerman could have filed assault charges against Trayvon for the beat down. However, since Zimmerman felt he was in danger he fired his gun one time. Then, if Zimmerman had suffered long-term debilitating injuries he then could have sued Trayvon's parents since he is a minor and his parents are liable for his actions since he's a minor.

Either way neither party really comes out ahead no matter how you want to try to look at things unless both decided not to escalate the situation.

We can continue to try to argue the case into the end of time but it isn't going to change a single thing since both parties made bad decisions.

[RAGEMASTER5000]

It's a matter of physical ability.

In the Mean Green Bowl this year, I scored the first touchdown when my peer group of over 40s was covering me. After that, they stuck that 15 year old kid on me and I didn't get another catch all day.

Trayvon Martin at 6'1" and svelte probably got up on the pudgy Zimmerman pretty quickly. And, certainly, being taller, Trayvon had a longer reach than Zimmerman.

The whole thing is a tragedy. I think Zimmerman was doing what he thought was right by protecting his neighborhood on a regular basis. I think Martin was just out to get some snacks to even up his buzz, which isn't out of the norm either.

I think both had chips on their respective shoulders about the world as they perceived it. If we believe the friend girl testimony, Martin was suspicious of "crackers." Zimmerman, we know, was suspicious of unfamilar kids in the neighborhood based on past crimes in the neighborhood,

Unfortunately, these two humans with chips on their shoulder about one thing or another had a tense meeting. I think Martin probably did get up on Zimmerman and start whaling on him. And, at that point, I think Zimmerman panicked and shot Martin.

I think both were amped up by emotions fed by the chips on the shoulder.

It's well documented that I'm not a fan of some of the contributing factors. I'm not for marijuana legalization, and I'm not for everyone being able to carry around firearms. And, I'm never a fan or race-baiting media and politicians.

I understand that a 17 year old kid is completely capable of seriously injuring an adult. According to Florida's self defense and stand your ground laws Martin would have been acquitted if Zimmerman had been killed or injured. My opinion is that Zimmerman caused the situation. He should have reported any suspicious behavior and left it to the authorities.

[EagleGreen]

And if Zimmerman did not have a gun with him and had not shot Trayvon it the possible that Zimmerman could have filed assault charges against Trayvon for the beat down. However, since Zimmerman felt he was in danger he fired his gun one time. Then, if Zimmerman had suffered long-term debilitating injuries he then could have sued Trayvon's parents since he is a minor and his parents are liable for his actions since he's a minor.

Either way neither party really comes out ahead no matter how you want to try to look at things unless both decided not to escalate the situation.

We can continue to try to argue the case into the end of time but it isn't going to change a single thing since both parties made bad decisions.

Well...if a frog had a glass ass, he would only hop once. Doubtful Zimmerman would have confronted Martin without the gun. Doubtful Martin would have "beat up" Zimmerman if Zimmerman didn't confront. If Zimmerman didn't have a gun, the cops would likely have asked Martin what he was doing, he would have said I'm walking home from the store, and the cops would likely have let him go.

[UNTFan23]

Well...if a frog had a glass ass, he would only hop once. Doubtful Zimmerman would have confronted Martin without the gun. Doubtful Martin would have "beat up" Zimmerman if Zimmerman didn't confront. If Zimmerman didn't have a gun, the cops would likely have asked Martin what he was doing, he would have said I'm walking home from the store, and the cops would likely have let him go.

Like i said, we can argue this till the end of time and it ain't going to change a thing. Both parties made bad choices and someone sadly lost their life due to those bad decisions.

[UNT90]

Well...if a frog had a glass ass, he would only hop once. Doubtful Zimmerman would have confronted Martin without the gun. Doubtful Martin would have "beat up" Zimmerman if Zimmerman didn't confront. If Zimmerman didn't have a gun, the cops would likely have asked Martin what he was doing, he would have said I'm walking home from the store, and the cops would likely have let him go.

You say Zimmerman confronted Martin like it's gospel. We don't know that this happened. Maybe Martin got pissed because he was being followed and decided to turn the tables on Zimmerman.

You can't apply supposition to the situation just to get the outcome that you want.

It's a terrible tragedy for both parties and both families.

[UNT90]

I'm thoroughly confused. Are we arguing the merits of my post or am I now to defend the actions of the media as well because it fits your case?

And why when you read the words "Zimmerman supporters" do you automatically think I'm talking about you? You should know quite well I have no problem calling anyone out by name...I believe in specificity like that. Or is this just more convenient to your assumption that there are only two sides to this issue, those that believe in "the truth" and those that want to cry racism? Funny, I thought there was the third option of being one who realizes that NOBODY other than George Zimmerman knows exactly what happened prior to Trayvon Martin getting the better of George Zimmerman in a physical altercation. Tell me, where was the eye witness testimony that Martin was the initial aggressor? That's right, there wasn't any.

I'll leave the assumptions about Zimmerman's and Martin's mental state, level of intoxication, racist feelings, etc to greater minds than mine. Sure, I can throw out wild conjecture like anyone else but I recognize it as such and don't feel the need to assume that I'm wise enough to uncover a grand right wing conspiracy.

The guy was found not guilty because the prosecution didn't have a strong case. No more, no less. I seem to have misplaced Al Sharpton and Brother Jesse's phone numbers so I won't be fielding any further questions on their behalf. Sorry.

So your saying you aren't calling me a Zimmermam supporter, and then turn around and call me a Zimmerman supporter.

Lolz.

[RAGEMASTER5000]

You say Zimmerman confronted Martin like it's gospel. We don't know that this happened. Maybe Martin got pissed because he was being followed and decided to turn the tables on Zimmerman.

You can't apply supposition to the situation just to get the outcome that you want.

It's a terrible tragedy for both parties and both families.

So would you have followed Martin?

Also, do you feel like it's within reason to confront someone who is following you?

Edited July 15, 2013 by RAGEMASTER5000