Or he could have been around somebody else who was using it, or he could have been in a geographic location where use is permitted or a number of other factors but again we do not know. On that same note, Zimmerman following Martin could be construed as stalking under Florida's laws. "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." Given the circumstance of that night, I'd say it's possible he fit that mold but just like Martin's mar1juana usage, it is something that is hard if not impossible to prove.
Haha, that TM had a positive drug test is compelling circumstatntial evidence but GZ following and killing a kid isn't very compelling. That's beautiful. Its also not compelling that the dead kid was drug tested but the killer was not.
Yes, a trace of mar1juana in his system is compelling... defenders of GZ are reaching to the depths of the m0rans to defend what happened. I don't think GZ killed TM in cold blood and I don't think he chased him, but for those throwing weak non-relevant nonsense into the argument are setting their cause back -- (how far back) -- way back.
again, is it fair to say there's a non-zero chance TM was out doing a drug deal, got paranoid, and flipped out on GZ? Walking slowly in the rain, illegal drugs in his system, a lighter, enough $ to purchase some dope....hmmmm
That is why I said it was compelling circumstantial evidence and not that it was proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Hypothetically, if John Doe is on probation and tests positive for mar1juana, the judge would probably find that absent any evidence to the contrary a preponderance standard for possession had been met. Certainly it is possible that he never had mar1juana, but the presence of it in his system is fairly strong evidence that he did. No, following alone cannot be construed as stalking, because you are missing an element or two. There is no indication that he had ever encountered Martin before, so clearly he has not followed repeatedly. There is also the requirement that he make a credible threat with the intent to place Martin in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury. Following alone is not enough. Following is relevant, but simply saying he followed him is not compelling evidence of stalking. Not what I said at all. The contention was that a positive drug test was not an illegal offense. While that is true (so far as I know there is no Florida statute against testing positive for drugs), a positive drug test would make it far more likely than not that at some point in the recent past Martin was in possession of said drugs. I didn't comment at all in that post on Zimmerman or what following and killing a kid is evidence of. I have covered the shooting prior to this. The fact that Zimmerman killed Martin (based on his confession, being found in possession of the weapon that killed Martin, etc.) is certainly compelling evidence of homicide. The fact that drive his case are going to be: 1) whether or not Zimmerman had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury; and if so, 2) whether or not Martin had a legal right to use deadly force against Zimmerman when he put him in fear of death or great bodily injury. The fact that Zimmerman was not drug tested could be considered interesting, maybe even troubling, but I wouldn't say it was compelling. There were officers on the scene as well as medical personnel. They are in a position to make a determination whether or not Zimmerman was under the influence just minutes after the killing. They could not make that determination as to Martin, because Martin was dead when they arrived. A trace of mar1juana in his system is not compelling in regard to the case against Zimmerman. It may be relevant, but I would say it would be marginally so. It is fairly compelling evidence that at some point Martin was in possession of mar1juana, which is illegal, and the contention I was responding to is that a positive drug test is not an illegal offense and compared testing positive for mar1juana to following someone. Following someone is not illegal, and no inference can be drawn from following someone that you earlier committed an offense. The same cannot be said for testing positive for mar1juana. In no way is this side discussion being presented as a defense of what happened.
Strong evidence according to who? I think that would be dependent upon who was given the information. He wouldn't have had to encounter him before as Florida law states "over a period of time, however short". He was told by the dispatcher not to follow and he may have been told something similar by Martin, yet he repeatedly followed him when there was no need to as police were on the way as Zimmerman was told. I didn't say that following was enough to warrant the threat and fears aspect of the law but we do not know what happened between the two and who started the confrontation so Zimmerman could in fact be just as guilty for this as people who keep bringing up stuff about the drugs in Martin's system. My only point is neither should be brought up because there is not enough factual evidence to show that either of these played a role in the events that night.
While I have previously noted in this thread that Trayvon wasn't exactly a boy scout, that does not change the fact that Trayvon was not actively engaged in the type of activity that would warrant being tailed by a self appointed detective. That act of Zimmerman led to the altercation (apparently he wasn't as slick as he thought he was) which then led to Trayvon being shot. The question here is whether "stand your ground" protects you from killing somebody in an altercation that you, either directly or indirectly, instigated. I believe the answer is no.
Please post your proof that GZ instigated the altercation. Can he not legally walk up to somebody and talk to them?
I think it is safe to assume that he had smoked pot earlier, went to buy a snack and got clipped while walking home. That is what the facts support.
GZ followed the kid around such that the kid noticed and felt apprehension. Now post your evidence that the kid was headed toward a drug deal. You asking for evidence is laughable.
your argument is not convincing because it's not based upon facts I'm not sure if TM was out doing a drug deal or not, which I've stated many times. Is there suspicious evidence that he COULD HAVE BEEN? Yes. 1) He had illegal drugs in his system, which indicates he's a user....and users must procure pot from somewhere 2) He had a lighter on his person 3) He had sufficient funds on his person to buy pot 4) There are reports that he attacked GZ, and there's a non-zero chance that was due to paranoia about getting caught during a drug deal. PWN3D. really, for a lawyer you need to operate more within the realm of fact and reason. You're getting duped by the media, which I would assume most attorneys could see through. You're having real trouble with that.
No...like most people, I am more concerned with WHY Zimmerman was following the kid. None of the subsequent events would have happened but for him being followed. This is a test of how far stand your ground extends. Nothing more. All the other speculation is meaningless. If the kid was involved in criminal mischief such that following him was reasonable, then Zimmerman should be protected. If no such activity was ascertainable, then the Zimmerman should not have follows him and the subsequent events should not have occurred. It is really that simple.
Excellent post -- I don't understand how TM defenders can just throw out the possibility he was addicted to mar1juana. Modern mar1juana is just as strong and addicting as meth or cocaine -- the slang term now for super strong mar1juana is Crystal Mary. There are so many different kinds of ultra strong mar1juana these days it's impossible to know what the effects will be on an individual user. It's entirely possible TM thought GZ was his dealer and was withholding mar1juana from him resulting in a brutal attack for the drug. The point is we just don't know.
You're oversimplifying this, likely because you're too intellectually lazy to actually trouble yourself with reading the facts, but instead you let yourself fall into the trap of getting duped by the media's bias and constructing an opinion based on far too few facts. GZ can legally go up to TM and talk to him. So your point about "none of this would have happened if GZ hadn't done that" is completely irrelevant. Guess what, none of it would have happened if TM never went to the store (also legal). I can't believe the absolutely amateurish logic you're employing, since you're an attorney.
According to me. I wasn't quoting someone, I was giving my opinion. You think that the weight of the evidence that Martin had mar1juana in his system is dependent on who is given the information? In one sense I agree, but the same could be said for any evidence. Different jurors see things differently. Some people are stupid. Some people have had contact highs many times but never smoked pot. Some people don't believe in science. I think if the information were given to anyone with a modicum of common sense, they would reach the same conclusion I have, that according to any objective standard having mar1juana in your system is a good indicator that at some point in your past you possessed mar1juana. It is not a guarantee, but I would say more likely than not. You are misusing the word repeatedly. Repeatedly means more than once. Following him once during which time he was asked not to follow once or twice is still only following once. In order to repeatedly follow him, he would have to follow him, stop following him, and then follow him again. Simply following once is not enough. The following has no bearing on that. If Zimmerman were spinning donuts and then did something to start the confrontation, that would be no different than following him. The following, where there was no other instance of following, has no application to a stalking charge. I agree that neither is particularly relevant. Many, many pages back I pointed out what the case should turn on. I included it in my last post as well in a nice numbered list. Nothing else should have any bearing on the case. I think ultimately the case will not involve stand your ground at all. Either Zimmerman was on the ground getting his head pounded (in which case he had no avenue of escape) or he was not and thus did not have a reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury. Stand your ground has no application in either case.
You keep thinking that while you post theories based on inference and innuendo...talk about lazy. Funniest thing I have read in a long time. You have a promising future in comedy.
Understood, just giving your opinion. Sorry for the misinterpretation. Maybe I should have referred to harassment instead of stalking. Either way it looks like we agree that both instances have little relevance. Done.
Well Well what does this say about the person that GZ maybe . WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) — A Florida woman claims she was molested as a child by George Zimmerman, the former neighborhood watch volunteer who is charged in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin. In an interview with police released Monday under a judge's order, the woman said she was fondled, groped and kissed by Zimmerman beginning when she was 6 and he was about 8. She said it continued until she was about 16. The woman, identified as witness No. 9, said they would see each other at family gatherings, but their relationship was removed from the audio recording. Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, had fought the release, calling it an "uncorroborated, irrelevant statement" in court documents. He did not respond to a phone call seeking comment. Zimmerman, 28, is charged with second-degree murder in the Feb. 26 death of the 17-year-old Martin, who was unarmed when he was killed in a community in Sanford. Zimmerman claims Martin attacked him. He has pleaded not guilty, claiming self-defense. Police in Sanford said prosecutors had not alerted them to the alleged assault, but it is not clear where it may have occurred. Prosecutors did not return a call seeking comment or say whether they planned to pursue additional charges. In the interview, the woman tearfully recalled watching movies at Zimmerman's house when he first reached inside her underwear. She said she went to sleep crying. "I would try to push him off, but he was bigger and stronger and older," she said. She said she was not raped, but the abuse happened over the next 10 years when their families would visit one another. "Every time that we would go up there, I could just look at him and he would give me a certain look and I would know if it was going to happen," she said. Around 2005, the woman's parents arranged to meet Zimmerman at a restaurant to confront him, after learning from her sister what happened. He showed up, said "I'm sorry," and left, the woman said. The Orlando Sentinel, the Sun Sentinel and WFTV fought for the release of the interview, and the judge agreed. "Adding this statement to the discourse will simply be another piece of the puzzle to be relied upon by those who want to believe there was a racial motive to the shooting, and will be dismissed by those who claim that there was no such motive" Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester wrote. An attorney for Martin's family, Benjamin Crump, said the interview could be used at trial to show Zimmerman "has a history of violence and manipulation." But prosecutors and the defense attorney questioned in court documents whether it would be allowed. In a separate interview, the woman accused Zimmerman of being a racist. Martin's parents believe the black teen was racially profiled. Zimmerman's father is white and his mother is Peruvian. "I was afraid that he may have done something because the kid was black, because growing up they always made — him and his family have always made — statements that they don't like black people if they don't act like white people," the woman said. Under questioning, she said she couldn't recall any specific comments Zimmerman made. Prosecutors also released 145 phone calls Zimmerman made from jail. In one to his wife, he said he once wanted to be a priest, and he was thinking of becoming a chaplain. ___ Associated Press writers Jennifer Kay in Miami and Suzette Laboy in Fort Lauderdale
