lol 1) there's nothing illegal or wrong with Zimmerman following Martin. even if he wasn't part of the neighborhood watch there would be nothing wrong 2) there's nothing wrong with Zimmerman carrying while having a concealed weapons permit 3) there's an entire series of events between Zimmerman following Martin and Martin dying. the tragedy is that a lot of that middle was completely unnecessary and Martin didn't need to die. Zimmerman wasn't advised not to follow Martin. he was told he didn't have to follow Martin. the problem with this entire thing starts with people like you. you post irrelevant **** and innuendo when the simple FACTS suffice. and facts are the only things that are relevant. who he talked to at 911, whether he was carrying, that he was non-black (latino + jew) or that Martin was black doesn't have any bearing in the case. other than the fact that black folks care about this case solely because Martin was black and the shooter was not. the point isn't even whether Martin initiated the fight or whether he hurt Zimmerman. the SALIENT POINT in the argument is whether Martin's life was in DANGER and whether this was SELF DEFENSE. that's the only **** you have to worry about, and honestly you have a very good point to argue that this killing was NOT self defense. seriously 90% of the stuff I'm reading from black columnists, bloggers and from Trayvon Martin advocators is completely irrelevant mob-mentality stuff.
According to you the public evidence shows Zimmerman is innocent. I've seen evidence pointing the other way as well, that seems at least as credible. It's why I didn't want to make the call about which witnesses were better and all of that. Put it in front of the court, and let justice be done.
Oh, quit name calling. You know it is disingenuous to be spouting the "wait til' the facts are in" party line, then when they do elect to prosecute your hero...it's "the fix was in!". Also quit putting middle names into everything to emphasize someone has a foreign sounding middle name. I got tired of it with Barack Hussein Obama, and it isn't any less tiresome now. She's a state attorney not a serial killer. Try not to stroke out when they find Zimmerman guilty huh.
Seriously you could of sumed everything up with just "WAHHHHHHHH!!!" Would of been a shorter read and gotten the same point across.
Legality of Following Someone http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65123 Is it legal to follow someone? Surveillance of a person is legal when it is conducted by a licensed investigator retained for the purpose of performing surveillance for a legitimate legal purpose. http://eaglespi.com/florida-private-investigator-faqs.html Stalking and Harassment http://www.esia.net/State_Stalking_Laws.htm FLORIDA Section 784.048. STALKING; DEFINITIONS; PENALTIES. 1997. (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. (b) "Course of conduct" means a pattern a conduct composed of series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests. (c) "Credible threat" means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person. (2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. (3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (4) Any person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person that person's property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (5) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses a minor under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, so. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (6) Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section. GEORGIA 16-5-90. Stalking. 1998. (a) A person commits the offense of stalking when he or she follows, places under surveillance, or contacts another person at or about a place or places without the consent of the other person for the purpose of harassing and intimidating the other person. For the purpose of this article, the term "place or places" shall include any public or private property occupied by the victim other than the residence of the defendant. For the purposes of this article, the term "harassing and intimidating" means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes emotional distress by placing such person in reasonable fear for such person's safety or the safety of a member of his or her immediate family, by establishing a pattern of harassing and intimidating behavior, and which serves no legitimate purpose. This Code section shall not be construed to require that an overt threat of death or bodily injury has been made. 2) there's nothing wrong with Zimmerman carrying while having a concealed weapons permit We don't need you to do that. 1. I'm sorry, but why would have Zimmerman's life been in danger in the first place at any point. He DID NOT LISTEN TO DISPATCHER. 2. Moreover, he lost track of Martin who ran away (VERY LIFE THREATENING to Zimmerman). How did he find him to initiate contact with him, when he was supposed to be meeting the police officer at a rendezvous point? At what point did Zimmerman try to retreat or avoid the situation and leave to the POLICE OFFICERS. He had an option to retreat, so I really do not know where people are pulling the self-defense from. It's ludicrous, if he originally lost the kid and was advised that he shouldn't chase the suspect. How was he ever forced to stand his ground?
if he's innocent then he will win the court case. Why is everybody getting so riled up about him being charged? Shouldn't you be confident he wins since supposedly, all "publicly available" evidence points to his innocence? Lots of uneasy people in this thread lol
Because if he was a black cop, he would have already been charged. The biggest gripe from the black community wasnt that he killed Trayvon Martin, it was that nothing happened to George Zimmerman after the death, and to us he basically got away with murder. This can happen to any black person, so yes it is big to us
He should have been in custody long time ago. You cant kill someone and just walk away without a full investigation. Well, you can, but you shouldnt be able to. :grin: Oh, and gwayneco, stop crying, you little b****.
The inevitable happened and Zimmerman has been charged. Will be interesting to see the evidence that comes out....
It also doesn't help that: 1) He was unarmed (drink and skittles) and not dangerous ... that's upsetting to hear someone like that being shot. Then, at that point anyone could get shot by someone and have that person claim self-defense. 2) He was a minor, even at 17. Still a child, it could me any of your male students (as a teacher, mentor, coach, or instructor) or male relative (son, nephew, cousin, brother, or etc.). 3) Minding and tending his own business: He could've been a burglar, murderer, pedophile, or terrorist for all I care, yet who is supposed to determine his danger status and apprehend him . . . the Police. You cannot go out kill someone by yourself on those grounds. The law doesn't give you any kind of right to do so, unless the suspect aggravates an attack against you. 4) Whose property was he on or tending to? He was on a trail/road. He was actually in process of robbing a house or trying to steal a car. 5) Self-defense argument: Why did Zimmerman have to defend himself in the first place, after he lost track of Martin? That makes no sense to me, unless he was looking to aggravate the situation (against the wishes of the dispatcher). It specifically says in the statute that one can use self-defense, when there's no room for retreat. 6) The shooter was absolved, NO TRIAL whatsoever. It just irks you the wrong way. I know some people just will not understand. Alot of those elements.
I bet they plead out to manslaughter. There is at least a 50/50 chance gz losses. So the expected value is 12.5 years. If he takes option 2 he gets 5 years
Just looking at what we've heard that has been made available, likely the first serious crime was Trayvon assaulting Zimmerman. I'll be interested to see what, if any, new evidence is offered to make this a M2 charge rather than Manslaughter..... or is it a public offering and a warning to others?
Before you make any assumptions about the outcome, why don't you just wait for the actual outcome before declaring our justice system a farce? All we have been asking for is that Trayvon's family had an opportunity to see GZ plead his case in court. You naysayers persisted that there wasn't enough evidence to even make an arrest. You have now been proven wrong. There WAS enough evidence to make an arrest. Now let's see what the judge has to say ...before you jump to any conclusions.
Actually you cannot be sure of that. Could the biased media and the threat of violence have left the prosecutor with no choice but to arrest Zimmerman?
I knew he would be charged once this went to a special prosecutor because she would have become a target if she didn't. I still would have liked to see this go to a grand jury. I hope the evidence gives a clear picture of what happened and justice is served if he is found guilty. I also hope there isn't major civil unrest if he is found innocent. I hope 12 of his peers can objectively look at the evidence and make the right decision.
Are you going to jump to that conclusion, or are you going to wait for more facts before making that call?
I bolded part of the quote that wasn't originally bolded. Only if you ignore some of the witness testimony, phone records, some of the physical evidence, and/or choose to interpret the physical evidence in a particular way that is far from certain. Interesting that you are so willing to interpret evidence in favor of Zimmerman.
Weighing back in here now that we have seen the charges. I fully expected Zimmerman to be charged but Murder 2 seems surprising. This one area where I am wondering if some politics was behind the more serious charge or else if this is a strategy by the prosecutor to try to compel Zimmerman to make a plea. Nook, do you know if FL law allows for the jury and / or judge to consider a lesser charge at trial like Manslaughter?
