Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 6 votes

Florida Teen murdered by


  • Please log in to reply
1528 replies to this topic

#1516    Michelle

Michelle

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,654 posts
  • Joined:03 Jan 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tennessee

  • Eleanor Roosevelt: Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

Posted 06 June 2013 - 07:12 PM

View PostxFelix, on 06 June 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

If you have a problem with understanding what the law says is a criminal act because you find it to be completely acceptable.. That's on you. But the law does say you can't follow someone who doesn't want to be followed(Unless you're a police officer).


If Martin were not trespassing, or acting in a suspicious manner, stalking would still be stalking. If Zimmerman were in a different neighborhood he would still stalk people of which he believes to be suspicious, which would still be against the law, and quite possibly would still have lead to a similar event. If this whole agenda weren't about race, stalking would still be stalking. Personally, if he would have stalked me in the same threatening fashion he wouldn't have had small lacerations, the same applies if he would have stalked an officer in the same way... He would have a hole in his chest. You cannot stalk people and then claim to be defending yourself when they decide they will stand and fight.

Anyone saying that you should be able to put yourself in danger and then defend yourself from the danger is flawed. I hope you don't go jumping in front of traffic and then shooting it up because you had to defend yourself... It's exactly the same as stalking someone you believe to be dangerous and then claiming to defend yourself because you were in danger...

Obviously, you have never gone to the police because someone was stalking you. Someone cannot be charged with stalking unless it is a pattern over at least several days or weeks. They tell you to keep a log of how many times you see them and where. They will take a report and do nothing unless it is habitual and you keep reporting the behavior.


#1517    xFelix

xFelix

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 653 posts
  • Joined:30 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

  • Yea I'm Pagan, oh no!

Posted 06 June 2013 - 07:49 PM

View PostMichelle, on 06 June 2013 - 07:12 PM, said:

Obviously, you have never gone to the police because someone was stalking you. Someone cannot be charged with stalking unless it is a pattern over at least several days or weeks. They tell you to keep a log of how many times you see them and where. They will take a report and do nothing unless it is habitual and you keep reporting the behavior.
Does not have to be over any period of time in Florida, the rest is very true.. The police will do pretty much nothing about stalking because it is a misdemeanor...
So why does the stalking matter? Because Zimmerman stands charged with second degree murder which means he must have broken the law and that caused the death of another... His stalking is him breaking the law, and we all know what happened to Martin...

View PostHeru, on 06 June 2013 - 06:11 PM, said:

Actually you can follow people. But you just don't admit your following them.  Your allowed to walk anywhere on public property. And also take pictures as long as your feet are on legal ground(forgot how they put it). You can also look or take pictures in cars and windows as long as your standing on public property. You can search thru garbage if said garbage is on public property.  Thing about trespassing is if they don't have a sign or a fence(any structure realy like a door) or no verbal warning you cant really get em for trespassing.  You can't file a civil case for someone walking on your yard.  

You don't have to admit to following them, stalking in Florida is a beast of it's own. Even without your admitting to stalking, I posted the link in an earlier post citing the Broward Sheriff Dept. explicitly saying that following someone who does not want to be followed is harassment, and repeat harassment is stalking.

Which again means in the state of Florida, you cannot follow someone who does not want to be followed. Whether you admit to it or not, or whether you say you don't know the laws, or even if you really don't know. Fortunately for the people who keep saying that following is legal, you either don't live in Florida or you get lucky in the sense that it is a misdemeanor and most officers will ignore it because it is too much paperwork for very little results. But be warned when this leads to greater crimes, it will be used against you to pile on the jail time...

View Postaztek, on 06 June 2013 - 06:59 PM, said:

no one gonna threaten the judge, cops protect them.

jurys name are not published, neither their adresses, but witheses names are everywhere, and adress is known. there have been cases of witnesses being pressed, and even killed, even after the trial.
I don't know what country you're from, but here in the USA... Judges are not above threats and even attempts against their lives. Jurors also do have to state who they are....

Edited by xFelix, 06 June 2013 - 08:04 PM.

My posts consist of my opinions, beliefs, and experiences, feel free to disagree in a respectful manner.

I have a right to my beleifs, just as you have a right to not agree with them.

So long as we respect each other's beliefs, we won't have a single problem.


#1518    Heru

Heru

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 828 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2005

Posted 06 June 2013 - 08:09 PM

View PostxFelix, on 06 June 2013 - 07:49 PM, said:

Does not have to be over any period of time in Florida, the rest is very true.. The police will do pretty much nothing about stalking because it is a misdemeanor...
So why does the stalking matter? Because Zimmerman stands charged with second degree murder which means he must have broken the law and that caused the death of another... His stalking is him breaking the law, and we all know what happened to Martin...



You don't have to admit to following them, stalking in Florida is a beast of it's own. Even without your admitting to stalking, I posted the link in an earlier post citing the Broward Sheriff Dept. explicitly saying that following someone who does not want to be followed is harassment, and repeat harassment is stalking.

Which again means in the state of Florida, you cannot follow someone who does not want to be followed. Whether you admit to it or not, or whether you say you don't know the laws, or even if you really don't know. Fortunately for the people who keep saying that following is legal, you either don't live in Florida or you get lucky in the sense that it is a misdemeanor and most officers will ignore it because it is too much paperwork for very little results. But be warned when this leads to greater crimes, it will be used against you to pile on the jail time...

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.
© "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.


Thats what i found for Florida under stalking laws. So really Z never broke any laws with following him.  Now they did change it a lil in 2012 but mostly the credible threat part. Now it includes electronic and non verbal threats. But from what I read it might be unconstitutional because you have to have proof of criminal intent blah blah blah. Mostly 1st amendment stuff.

/* Edit
I didn't add the smiley face just a misunderstanding with the html and law symbols. Also wanted to point out so you don't have to read it, the key word is repeatedly following or harassing someone. Which coincides with the early poster saying the cops told them to keep track and notes of them being harassed.

Edited by Heru, 06 June 2013 - 08:19 PM.


#1519    aztek

aztek

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,589 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2006

Posted 06 June 2013 - 08:28 PM

View PostxFelix, on 06 June 2013 - 07:49 PM, said:



I don't know what country you're from, but here in the USA... Judges are not above threats and even attempts against their lives. Jurors also do have to state who they are....

in court room jurors use numbers, not real names, and their adresses are not for public eyes. i was serving as a juror in nyc once, and was on grand jury as well.

as for a judge, try it for yourself, try to threaten him\her, or just approach on the street and start talking about their case, see what happens, than do same to a withness, tell us the difference.

RESIDENT TROLL.

#1520    xFelix

xFelix

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 653 posts
  • Joined:30 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

  • Yea I'm Pagan, oh no!

Posted 06 June 2013 - 08:48 PM

View PostHeru, on 06 June 2013 - 08:09 PM, said:


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.
© "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.


Thats what i found for Florida under stalking laws. So really Z never broke any laws with following him.  Now they did change it a lil in 2012 but mostly the credible threat part. Now it includes electronic and non verbal threats. But from what I read it might be unconstitutional because you have to have proof of criminal intent blah blah blah. Mostly 1st amendment stuff.

/* Edit
I didn't add the smiley face just a misunderstanding with the html and law symbols. Also wanted to point out so you don't have to read it, the key word is repeatedly following or harassing someone. Which coincides with the early poster saying the cops told them to keep track and notes of them being harassed.
Did Martin run away? There is your emotional distress.
How many times did Zimmerman do this? The newest evidence shows two(As in repetitive) confrontations, both in which Zimmerman followed a person who ran away(Showed emotional distress).

So yes, he did break laws when he followed Martin.

By the way I don't know where you got those laws from, but they are inaccurate.

Quote

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 which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
( B)“Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose. The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests.
© “Credible threat” means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution under this section.
(d) “Cyberstalk” means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.

(2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks 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) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that 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.
Source: http://www.leg.state.../0784/0784.html
(Yes, that is the official state legislature website.)


Note: Zimmerman might not even have been legally carrying his firearm. He was under prescribed psychological/psychiatric medicine on the night of the shooting. Whether he was taking it or not, this shows that he had an infirmity which made him an unsafe gun owner.

Quote

(B)  Develops or sustains a physical infirmity which prevents the safe handling of a weapon or firearm;
Source: http://www.leg.state...ns/0790.06.html

His prescribed medication was Tamazepam, and Labrix.
Source: http://www.axiomamne...t-documents.pdf
(Scroll all the way down)

Quote

Chlordiazepoxide hydrochloride is a versatile, therapeutic agent of proven value for the relief of anxiety and tension. It is indicated when anxiety, tension or apprehension are significant components of the clinical profile.
Source: http://www.rxlist.com/librax-drug.htm

Quote

Restoril™ (temazepam) is indicated for the short-term treatment of insomnia (generally 7 to 10 days).
For patients with short-term insomnia, instructions in the prescription should indicate that Restoril™ (temazepam) should be used for short periods of time (7 to 10 days).

The clinical trials performed in support of efficacy were 2 weeks in duration with the final formal assessment of sleep latency performed at the end of treatment.
Source: http://www.rxlist.co...ions-dosage.htm

Edited by xFelix, 06 June 2013 - 09:16 PM.

My posts consist of my opinions, beliefs, and experiences, feel free to disagree in a respectful manner.

I have a right to my beleifs, just as you have a right to not agree with them.

So long as we respect each other's beliefs, we won't have a single problem.


#1521    Myles

Myles

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,138 posts
  • Joined:08 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 June 2013 - 09:06 PM

View PostxFelix, on 06 June 2013 - 06:50 PM, said:

I agree with this post all the way, but if they disagreed why didn't they just present their own experts? That's the standard court procedure, prosecutors present their experts, defense presents their own...

The not allowing the witnesses to remain anonymous is totally ridiculous in my opinion, but I guess I could see the judges take on this. If the judge did not hide her identity, or that of the jury, why would she then hide the identity of witnesses? (I still disagree though but whatever, at least she has a logical reason for it.)

It's just that I think the witnesses are in much more fear for life and family than the judge or juries.   Wether it is warranted fear or fear from movies they have seen, it's real.


#1522    xFelix

xFelix

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 653 posts
  • Joined:30 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

  • Yea I'm Pagan, oh no!

Posted 06 June 2013 - 09:18 PM

View PostMyles, on 06 June 2013 - 09:06 PM, said:

It's just that I think the witnesses are in much more fear for life and family than the judge or juries.   Wether it is warranted fear or fear from movies they have seen, it's real.
As I said, when it comes to that I agree...

My posts consist of my opinions, beliefs, and experiences, feel free to disagree in a respectful manner.

I have a right to my beleifs, just as you have a right to not agree with them.

So long as we respect each other's beliefs, we won't have a single problem.


#1523    Heru

Heru

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 828 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2005

Posted 06 June 2013 - 09:20 PM

View PostxFelix, on 06 June 2013 - 08:48 PM, said:

Did Martin run away? There is your emotional distress.
How many times did Zimmerman do this? The newest evidence shows two(As in repetitive) confrontations, both in which Zimmerman followed a person who ran away(Showed emotional distress).

So yes, he did break laws when he followed Martin.

By the way I don't know where you got those laws from, but they are inaccurate.

Source: http://www.leg.state.../0784/0784.html
(Yes, that is the official state legislature website.)

Your reading it wrong guy
A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks
If A person who Willfully, maliciously and repeatedly does one or more of three things which is Follows, harasses or cyberstalks for you to be charged with stalking, Plus they also must make a "credible threat" for you to be charged with Aggravated stalking .

Its not about one offense, but repeatedly following someone on multiple occurrences is a misdamener if you show signs of threat then its a felony. All of em require continuous Following or Harrasing.

And part 1 subsection a of my quote is just listing there definition of that term pertaining to this law. There just explaining what they mean by Harass.

I mentioned there was a newer one but it just added cyber and changed the wording a lil on credible threat. Which I didnt think was that important.


#1524    xFelix

xFelix

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 653 posts
  • Joined:30 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

  • Yea I'm Pagan, oh no!

Posted 06 June 2013 - 09:31 PM

View PostHeru, on 06 June 2013 - 09:20 PM, said:

Your reading it wrong guy
A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks
If A person who Willfully, maliciously and repeatedly does one or more of three things which is Follows, harasses or cyberstalks for you to be charged with stalking, Plus they also must make a "credible threat" for you to be charged with Aggravated stalking .

Its not about one offense, but repeatedly following someone on multiple occurrences is a misdamener if you show signs of threat then its a felony. All of em require continuous Following or Harrasing.

And part 1 subsection a of my quote is just listing there definition of that term pertaining to this law. There just explaining what they mean by Harass.

I mentioned there was a newer one but it just added cyber and changed the wording a lil on credible threat. Which I didnt think was that important.

Breaking any law willfully is malicious, therefore the word "maliciously" is null so long as willfully remains.
Again, He FOLLOWED Martin the first time... Martin got away(Terminates the following)... Martin supposedly approaches him in his car and asks why he's following him... He said he isn't... As soon as Martin starts walking away.. he FOLLOWED him again.
(This much is known because both sides of the argument agree to this much)

Now this following can be defined as harassment, I already pointed that out... But I wanted to show you how this turned from following/harassment into stalking.
Tell you what, I won't argue with you on this anymore... The law is clear, and Zimmerman admitted to doing this...

I just want to see wtf Zimmerman has up his sleeve cause all I see is that he has mental illness which means he shouldn't have had a firearm at all. But he didn't plea insanity... and he waived SYG immunity... If he's really going for self-defense hes going to jail cause he created the danger... He has to have that one "glove did not fit" defense otherwise he's just feeding himself to the lions...

If I was his lawyer, I would have plead insanity.. argued that out and tried to get him reduced to an involuntary manslaughter...

Edited by xFelix, 06 June 2013 - 09:35 PM.

My posts consist of my opinions, beliefs, and experiences, feel free to disagree in a respectful manner.

I have a right to my beleifs, just as you have a right to not agree with them.

So long as we respect each other's beliefs, we won't have a single problem.


#1525    Heru

Heru

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 828 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2005

Posted 06 June 2013 - 09:53 PM

View PostxFelix, on 06 June 2013 - 09:31 PM, said:

Breaking any law willfully is malicious, therefore the word "maliciously" is null so long as willfully remains.
Again, He FOLLOWED Martin the first time... Martin got away(Terminates the following)... Martin supposedly approaches him in his car and asks why he's following him... He said he isn't... As soon as Martin starts walking away.. he FOLLOWED him again.
(This much is known because both sides of the argument agree to this much)

Now this following can be defined as harassment, I already pointed that out... But I wanted to show you how this turned from following/harassment into stalking.
Tell you what, I won't argue with you on this anymore... The law is clear, and Zimmerman admitted to doing this...

I just want to see wtf Zimmerman has up his sleeve cause all I see is that he has mental illness which means he shouldn't have had a firearm at all. But he didn't plea insanity... and he waived SYG immunity... If he's really going for self-defense hes going to jail cause he created the danger... He has to have that one "glove did not fit" defense otherwise he's just feeding himself to the lions...

If I was his lawyer, I would have plead insanity.. argued that out and tried to get him reduced to an involuntary manslaughter...

I posted a few lines up what there defense has been so far. Most of it has been bared from being allowed in the case.  There using, him being suspended for fighting, Marijuana use, and a video he recorded of people fighting. Pretty much there attacking M's character and trying to show he is a violent person (Yes there actually trying to put out that marijuana and violence are related). Its a weak case and they've been leaking info to the press and social networks twisting some of the info to make it sound worse than what it is. There trying to influence the jury before there picked. Because they know non of it will be permissible in court.

And no he wasn't harassing him. Trust me on this I can explain more through a PM. Stalking is a very hard charge to put on someone and its easy to throw out. Im a Licensed PI so trust me on this.  Plus the fact he was an appointed neighborhood watch there is no way you could pin Harassment per there definition on him.

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

His following him did have a legitimate purpose as a neighborhood watch.  And he would have to show a pattern of him following him not just one night.


#1526    xFelix

xFelix

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 653 posts
  • Joined:30 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

  • Yea I'm Pagan, oh no!

Posted 06 June 2013 - 10:03 PM

http://video.foxnews...d=2114913880001

ROFL WTF IS WRONG WITH THESE GUYS?!

My posts consist of my opinions, beliefs, and experiences, feel free to disagree in a respectful manner.

I have a right to my beleifs, just as you have a right to not agree with them.

So long as we respect each other's beliefs, we won't have a single problem.


#1527    xFelix

xFelix

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 653 posts
  • Joined:30 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

  • Yea I'm Pagan, oh no!

Posted 06 June 2013 - 10:06 PM

View PostHeru, on 06 June 2013 - 09:53 PM, said:

I posted a few lines up what there defense has been so far. Most of it has been bared from being allowed in the case.  There using, him being suspended for fighting, Marijuana use, and a video he recorded of people fighting. Pretty much there attacking M's character and trying to show he is a violent person (Yes there actually trying to put out that marijuana and violence are related). Its a weak case and they've been leaking info to the press and social networks twisting some of the info to make it sound worse than what it is. There trying to influence the jury before there picked. Because they know non of it will be permissible in court.

And no he wasn't harassing him. Trust me on this I can explain more through a PM. Stalking is a very hard charge to put on someone and its easy to throw out. Im a Licensed PI so trust me on this.  Plus the fact he was an appointed neighborhood watch there is no way you could pin Harassment per there definition on him.

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

His following him did have a legitimate purpose as a neighborhood watch.  And he would have to show a pattern of him following him not just one night.
You're a PI from where?

I'm a licensed security officer for the state of Florida, and trust me when I say... his being a neighborhood watch captain is completely useless in a harassment charge.
A Private Investigator CAN follow, so long as it is relevant to his investigation though... ;) But Private Investigators are licensed to do so...

Edited by xFelix, 06 June 2013 - 10:06 PM.

My posts consist of my opinions, beliefs, and experiences, feel free to disagree in a respectful manner.

I have a right to my beleifs, just as you have a right to not agree with them.

So long as we respect each other's beliefs, we won't have a single problem.


#1528    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 17,435 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 06 June 2013 - 10:37 PM

View Postregi, on 06 June 2013 - 11:11 AM, said:

If those arrows in the photo are suggesting Martin's route, that's not possible. That view is from Oregon Avenue, it appears that's where Martin cut through, and he would have cut through directly off of Oregon Ave.. (The front entrance is further down Oregon Ave.)
I only posted the pic to show what the buildings look like.

View PostxFelix, on 06 June 2013 - 01:01 PM, said:

are you freaking serious?
Running from a stalker clearly demonstrates fear.(Zimmerman said that Martin ran, there is your witness.)
There are many reasons to run. You and I were not there, so though it may be logical, it is not evidence, such an arguement will be laughed at in court. Maybe he was running to get his phone and take a pic of GZ? Maybe he was running to hide something he had just stolen off a yard? Who knows? But saying he ran out of Life Endangered Fear is a bit much...

Quote

A stalker running towards you is a threat against your safety made by his body language.(I don't have to be there, he admitted to doing this in the 911 call.)
GZ ran after him like a minute after TM took off. TM was already out of sight. And GZ did not run far, as evidenced by his being out of breath on the phone with 911 after just 30 seconds of running. He most likely only ran to the backyard sidewalk and looked south, then proceeded to walk east to Retreat View and looked south. And TM was long gone. TM probably did not even see GZ get out of his truck.

Quote

He initially harassed Martin, Martin ran, he followed(harassed) Martin. That is a pattern.(As per Zimmerman's own statements on the 911 call.)
OK, assume I'm stupid... Answer these questions to me in detail...

How did he "initially harass TM? He was sitting in his truck till TM ran.

Then he ran to where TM disappeared and saw TM was gone, then looked around and proceeded to start back to his truck. All corroborated by the 911 call.

How is getting out of your car and running to where someone disappeared stalking? There is no pattern.

You've failed here again to prove your point.

Quote

Source: http://www.leg.state.../0784/0784.html

You are right about something though, if someone is stalking you, you can't just turn around and pop them say 50 feet away because you are not in danger while they are at that distance(unless they have a firearm and you fear they are going to use it at that distance). However, if a stalker runs towards you they are threatening great bodily harm or death and you would be justified in using whatever means you have to, to ensure your safety.

Do you believe TM saw GZ as a Life Endangering Threat as he walked toward him saying, "What are you doing here?"?  Do you still believe GZ had his gun in his hand when TM walked over to confront him and popped GZ in the nose?


1) You've failed to show any violence or threat by Z other then his getting out of his truck, which in itself is not threatening. Conclusion: No provable  threat.
2) You;ve failed to show Murder 2, because there is little to no evidence of intentional violence by Z. He commented that burglars in his neighborhood usually get away, but that is not him saying he intends to kill TM. Conclusion: No provable Fear.
3) I've shown with the map and evidence shown on it, that TM either a) purposefully returned to confront Z, or B) He was hiding in the bushes while Z was walking around, and then came out to confront Z.

You can't spin your own imagination into evidence. Please stick to the evidence and not what you Want to have happened.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#1529    dmurdock36

dmurdock36

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 523 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Angelo Tx

Posted 06 June 2013 - 10:40 PM

dude you have your mind made up and wont listen to people he didnt break any laws because it is not against the law to follow someone, unless that person has asked you to stop and you continue to follow them then it could be considered stalking, but there is no state in the union that outlaws following someone. you can read the law however you want to justify it in your head but you are wrong deal with it. If it was illegal to follow someone pretty women could have men arrested all the time, it becomes stalking or harrasment when they ask you to stop or call the police to report it and you continue the activity. very simple.


#1530    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 17,435 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 06 June 2013 - 10:50 PM

View Postaztek, on 06 June 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

Quote

Conclusions
The possibility that there was not just one, but two confrontations does help explain several things.

For one, why DeeDee’s testimony has seemed so confusing at times — she’s not relaying just one interaction Martin had with Zimmerman like most of us assumed, she’s bringing up two separate encounters she listened to, spaced only around a minute apart.

This description of events seems to be exactly what Zimmerman has been telling police since the beginning, since it’s essentially how the police described the incident to Tracy Martin the next day.

Trayvon still seems to have doubled back towards Zimmerman after he first started running at 7:11, but he went on to initially confront Zimmerman at his truck, rather than point [F].

None of this can tell us for sure how the fight began or who initiated physical contact.

Since it seems like Zimmerman’s main goal was to stay in touch the with police throughout the evening, it still seems unlikely that he would intentionally start any physical altercation knowing that they were on their way.

That being said, Zimmerman definitely missed an opportunity to identify himself at his truck, which potentially could have helped to de-escalate the situation.

That does explain a bunch of things, but muddies the water even more as related to Z following M, since M would have come back and reinitiated the whole thing with Z. Z can clearly argue he was not following but only moving to have a view of the neighborhood.

Also the location of the phone still indicates that M did not Stand his ground, He moved forward to confront Z.

Worst case conclusion: A double fault assault with both being at fault and M being shot. Verdict: Guilty of negligent Manslaughter.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users