Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Florida Teen murdered by


Copasetic

Recommended Posts

I still don't believe that following a person who is acting suspicious is a crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't believe that following a person who is acting suspicious is a crime.

First, "acting suspicious" doesn't mean anything. It's purely in the eye of the beholder.

Second, put yourself in that situation. You're walking back from a trip to the store and you notice someone obviously stalking you in a vehicle. You're going to be nervous and weighing the relative merits of stopping to ask what his problem is or just ignoring. Suppose you choose nonconfrontation and decide to head away from the road and take a back way "home". What if the guy gets out of the car and starts following you? You don't think you'd be primed for a fight where the wrong twitch on his part could cause you to start swinging?

The fact is that anytime during the stalking, Zimmerman could have rolled down his window and said there'd been burglaries in the area and he just wanted to follow him home to be sure that Martin belonged in the neighborhood. Sure, it would have p***ed him off, but no one would have been shot. He didn't though. It's absolute conjecture on my part, but I believe he didn't because he enjoys making people feel nervous and intimidated. Most wannabe cops I know do.

As I said 40-something pages ago, if anyone had a right to feel threatened and react with violence under the umbrella of the SYG law, it was Martin. That's a picture perfect example of why the SYG law exists. So people minding their business and doing nothing wrong don't feel the need to run from someone who seems to be trying to start something with them. While that sort of stalking isn't technically illegal, the SYG law gives it the equivalency of a crime by adding protection to the person being accosted.

Either way, the crime wasn't that he followed someone. He crossed the line into possible manslaughter territory when he decided to chase someone while he was carrying. What's not known (at least by us) is whether he crossed the line into murder territory by shooting Martin after the fight was over (like if he drew and Martin backed off and started yelling for help).

Edited by sam12six
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, "acting suspicious" doesn't mean anything. It's purely in the eye of the beholder.

Second, put yourself in that situation. You're walking back from a trip to the store and you notice someone obviously stalking you in a vehicle. You're going to be nervous and weighing the relative merits of stopping to ask what his problem is or just ignoring. Suppose you choose nonconfrontation and decide to head away from the road and take a back way "home". What if the guy gets out of the car and starts following you? You don't think you'd be primed for a fight where the wrong twitch on his part could cause you to start swinging?

The fact is that anytime during the stalking, Zimmerman could have rolled down his window and said there'd been burglaries in the area and he just wanted to follow him home to be sure that Martin belonged in the neighborhood. Sure, it would have p***ed him off, but no one would have been shot. He didn't though. It's absolute conjecture on my part, but I believe he didn't because he enjoys making people feel nervous and intimidated. Most wannabe cops I know do.

As I said 40-something pages ago, if anyone had a right to feel threatened and react with violence under the umbrella of the SYG law, it was Martin. That's a picture perfect example of why the SYG law exists. So people minding their business and doing nothing wrong don't feel the need to run from someone who seems to be trying to start something with them. While that sort of stalking isn't technically illegal, the SYG law gives it the equivalency of a crime by adding protection to the person being accosted.

Either way, the crime wasn't that he followed someone. He crossed the line into possible manslaughter territory when he decided to chase someone while he was carrying. What's not known (at least by us) is whether he crossed the line into murder territory by shooting Martin after the fight was over (like if he drew and Martin backed off and started yelling for help).

I bolded your assumption. I would rather take Zimmerman and the police's word that the area had been hit with crime lately. Trayvon fit the profile of a criminal. While I understand your statement about being pumped for a fight after being followed , those emotions in no way make it acceptable for Martin to have attacked Zimmerman.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bolded your assumption. I would rather take Zimmerman and the police's word that the area had been hit with crime lately. Trayvon fit the profile of a criminal. While I understand your statement about being pumped for a fight after being followed , those emotions in no way make it acceptable for Martin to have attacked Zimmerman.

I don't doubt for a second that Zimmerman was hoping Martin was a burglar. He'd been treated as a hero before by catching real burglars with his apprehend random strangers approach. That hope and his statement doesn't eliminate the fact that some neighbors have said that Zimmerman and his buddy would ride around and shake down anyone they felt like that they caught walking alone.

Those emotions, according to that badly written law, are exactly what gave Martin the right to attack Zimmerman when the situation turned from stalking to actual confrontation.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Zimmerman's actually guilty. Not being on the jury and not knowing the facts, that's neither my job nor a judgement I can make. The thing is though, people on the pro-Zimmerman side don't even want a trial - A man shot another down. It could have been murder, manslaughter, or self defense but they don't care - they just don't like the fact that the media has distorted the facts and people have cried racism. News flash: the media distorts the facts and people cry racism all the time. Wanting to see a possibly guilty man walk free to thwart them is exactly as bad as some of them wanting to see a possibly innocent man get convicted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those emotions, according to that badly written law, are exactly what gave Martin the right to attack Zimmerman when the situation turned from stalking to actual confrontation.

Why do you think that confrontation is equal to assault? There are laws against assault in the U.S. There are no laws against confrontation. Martin had no right to protect himself from confrontation, he did if he was assaulted.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would also not usually be considered stalking. Stalking is repeating actions over a period of time.

Stalking can be defined as the willful and repeated following, watching and/or harassing of another person. Unlike other crimes, which usually involve one act, stalking is a series of actions that occur over a period of time. Although stalking is illegal, some of the actions that can contribute to stalking are initially legal, such as gathering information, calling someone on the phone, sending gifts, emailing or instant messaging. They become illegal when they breach the legal definition of harassment e.g. an action such as sending a text is not usually illegal, but is illegal when frequently repeated to an unwilling recipient. In fact United Kingdom law states the incident only has to happen twice when the stalker should be aware their behavior is unacceptable e.g. two phone calls to a stranger, two gifts following the victim then phoning them etc. However, the victim may feel they have been the victim of a stalking after one incident e.g. being followed home.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you think that confrontation is equal to assault? There are laws against assault in the U.S. There are no laws against confrontation. Martin had no right to protect himself from confrontation, he did if he was assaulted.

That's why it's a badly written law. You don't have to assault someone, say something nasty to them, even look them in the eye. The way that law is written, if they think you're a danger to their life (regardless of how untrue that might be) then they can use force, even lethal force against you.

I used the word stalking in the colloquial sense, not the legal one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't doubt for a second that Zimmerman was hoping Martin was a burglar. He'd been treated as a hero before by catching real burglars with his apprehend random strangers approach. That hope and his statement doesn't eliminate the fact that some neighbors have said that Zimmerman and his buddy would ride around and shake down anyone they felt like that they caught walking alone.

Those emotions, according to that badly written law, are exactly what gave Martin the right to attack Zimmerman when the situation turned from stalking to actual confrontation.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Zimmerman's actually guilty. Not being on the jury and not knowing the facts, that's neither my job nor a judgement I can make. The thing is though, people on the pro-Zimmerman side don't even want a trial - A man shot another down. It could have been murder, manslaughter, or self defense but they don't care - they just don't like the fact that the media has distorted the facts and people have cried racism. News flash: the media distorts the facts and people cry racism all the time. Wanting to see a possibly guilty man walk free to thwart them is exactly as bad as some of them wanting to see a possibly innocent man get convicted.

The police had already decided there wasn't evidence to counter Zimmerman's claims so they didnt press charges. The problem here isnt the media its a corrupt government. Zimmerman has essentially been forced to face double jeopardy at the whim of a special prosecutor who (just guessing) probably has some ambitious political goals of his own. Had Zimmerman been arrested the night of or even in the days immediately after the shooting I would agree with you. As is it stinks of corruption and racism.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why it's a badly written law. You don't have to assault someone, say something nasty to them, even look them in the eye. The way that law is written, if they think you're a danger to their life (regardless of how untrue that might be) then they can use force, even lethal force against you.

I used the word stalking in the colloquial sense, not the legal one.

Well, disregarding the fact that SYG doesn't apply to the Zimmerman case, yes, someone does have to assault you before SYG applies.

Regardless, the stand your ground law has no relevance in the Zimmerman-Martin case, regardless of the version you believe. Here's why. There are two scenarios. In one, George Zimmerman was the criminal aggressor. If he was, stand your ground automatically does not apply to such situations, and he'll be found criminally liable for his actions and be punished. If you believe the other scenario, where he was knocked to the ground and Martin was looming over him, then Zimmerman had no way to retreat. Either way, the stand your ground law plays no part.

Edited by Pauly Dangerously
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used the word stalking in the colloquial sense, not the legal one.

The word stalking implies intent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The police had already decided there wasn't evidence to counter Zimmerman's claims so they didnt press charges. The problem here isnt the media its a corrupt government. Zimmerman has essentially been forced to face double jeopardy at the whim of a special prosecutor who (just guessing) probably has some ambitious political goals of his own. Had Zimmerman been arrested the night of or even in the days immediately after the shooting I would agree with you. As is it stinks of corruption and racism.

As I understand it, the police were going to arrest him and the DA vetoed them citing the SYG law as his reason. It's funny that it stinks of corruption and racism because that's exactly the way it smelled to people when the police did a cursory questioning and investigation. In this case, I think the local authorities dropped the ball and that has since been corrected. Justice and ambition are not always at odds.

Well, disregarding the fact that SYG doesn't apply to the Zimmerman case, yes, someone does have to assault you before SYG applies.

Regardless, the stand your ground law has no relevance in the Zimmerman-Martin case, regardless of the version you believe. Here's why. There are two scenarios. In one, George Zimmerman was the criminal aggressor. If he was, stand your ground automatically does not apply to such situations, and he'll be found criminally liable for his actions and be punished. If you believe the other scenario, where he was knocked to the ground and Martin was looming over him, then Zimmerman had no way to retreat. Either way, the stand your ground law plays no part.

Threatening someone is assault. The SYG law extends this concept to making someone FEEL threatened. Zimmerman's ability to retreat that far into the situation is irrelevant. What is relevant is that he created the entire situation where he killed someone.

The word stalking implies intent.

When he jumped out of the car, he was muttering about how they always got away. Is there any doubt in your mind that he intended to apprehend Martin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word stalking implies intent.

I see nothing to show that George intended to hurt Trayvon. In fact he called the cops, which tells me he wanted them to do the "dirty" work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, the police were going to arrest him and the DA vetoed them citing the SYG law as his reason. It's funny that it stinks of corruption and racism because that's exactly the way it smelled to people when the police did a cursory questioning and investigation. In this case, I think the local authorities dropped the ball and that has since been corrected. Justice and ambition are not always at odds.

Threatening someone is assault. The SYG law extends this concept to making someone FEEL threatened. Zimmerman's ability to retreat that far into the situation is irrelevant. What is relevant is that he created the entire situation where he killed someone.

When he jumped out of the car, he was muttering about how they always got away. Is there any doubt in your mind that he intended to apprehend Martin?

Very much doubt. I think he was just watching where Trayvon was going. There had been several robberies in the neighborhood (including George's house) by young blacks. George seen a unfamiliar young black guy walking the streets. I can understand if he decided to follow him. George was probably hoping he would lead him to his stolen bike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When he jumped out of the car, he was muttering about how they always got away. Is there any doubt in your mind that he intended to apprehend Martin?

When I spotted a stranger, in my neighborhood, pushing a lawnmower down the street and followed him to see where he was going I had no intention of apprehending him. I know who mows their own lawns and the people that are hired to mow the rest of them...and they bring their equipment in trucks. We were all fed up with the petty thefts that had been happening and the fact that they always get away. I couldn't prove that he had stolen the lawnmower, but he and his cronies are aware we are watching. The instances have dropped dramatically because of due diligence. Incidentally, it was a stolen lawnmower a neighbor later described to me.

If he was planning on apprehending Martin he would not have called the police.

Edited by Michelle
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Threatening someone is assault. The SYG law extends this concept to making someone FEEL threatened. Zimmerman's ability to retreat that far into the situation is irrelevant. What is relevant is that he created the entire situation where he killed someone.

No, threatening someone is not assault. Have you actually read Florida's SYG law?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, threatening someone is not assault. Have you actually read Florida's SYG law?

Is threatening someone an assault in any state?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why it's a badly written law. You don't have to assault someone, say something nasty to them, even look them in the eye. The way that law is written, if they think you're a danger to their life (regardless of how untrue that might be) then they can use force, even lethal force against you.

I used the word stalking in the colloquial sense, not the legal one.

What I find interesting is that so many use the SYG law to validate and excuse that Martin appears to have started the physical assault on Zimmerman, but call the SYG law stupid and idiotic when it is used to defend Zimmerman's use of his gun when he was being banged and beaten down on the concrete.

Young man physically beating down someone following and talking to him = OK. :no:

Shooting someone who is beating you uncontious = Evil. :no:

If Zimmerman had had a knife, he'd have used the knife, if he had keys and nothing else, he'd have used the keys. Trayvon, as far as Z knew, was TRYING TO KILL HIM! Trayvon didn't say, "Dude, I'm just going to hit you three times and get up and run away." Zimmerman thought he was going to DIE!

What exactly about someone following you and asking what you're doing in the neighborhood screams... "I'M GOING TO KILL YOU!" Because that is what the procescution is going to have to show. That Martin attacked out of self defense. Trayvon did not even have a history of white hatred toward him that might be used to excuse his actions. He was just a stupid idiot kid. Not a urban folk hero.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I find interesting is that so many use the SYG law to validate and excuse that Martin appears to have started the physical assault on Zimmerman, but call the SYG law stupid and idiotic when it is used to defend Zimmerman's use of his gun when he was being banged and beaten down on the concrete.

Young man physically beating down someone following and talking to him = OK. :no:

Shooting someone who is beating you uncontious = Evil. :no:

The thing is, the SYG law would definitely apply to Martin's situation. It MIGHT apply to Zimmerman if the scenario we've discussed before where he abandoned the chase and Martin came after him actually occurred. The guy who initiated the confrontation is not covered (at least under the spirit of the law, but might be under the actual wording - that's the lawyers' playground).

If Zimmerman had had a knife, he'd have used the knife, if he had keys and nothing else, he'd have used the keys. Trayvon, as far as Z knew, was TRYING TO KILL HIM! Trayvon didn't say, "Dude, I'm just going to hit you three times and get up and run away." Zimmerman thought he was going to DIE!

What exactly about someone following you and asking what you're doing in the neighborhood screams... "I'M GOING TO KILL YOU!" Because that is what the procescution is going to have to show. That Martin attacked out of self defense. Trayvon did not even have a history of white hatred toward him that might be used to excuse his actions. He was just a stupid idiot kid. Not a urban folk hero.

Yes, but what you're describing is normal self defense, not the application of the SYG. For normal self defense, you have to prove that your life actually was in danger, not just that you thought it might be. In this case, he was losing a fight. That's something that probably hundreds of people across the country walk away from every day. There's no intrinsic notion for most people that getting beat up means you're probably going to die.

I do agree that Martin is no folk hero. He's just the victim of (in the most generous characterization) overzealousness on the part of a neighbor. On the other hand, Zimmerman's no folk hero either. He's just a guy who went looking for trouble (before anyone claims that's not the case, he called 911 because he thought Martin was trouble and decided to chase him through the neighborhood).

As far as Zimmerman being convicted of anything, I don't care either way. I just think shooting someone dead with so many unanswered questions is too big not to press charges and let the court decide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought Zimmerman might be gutily of involuntry murder he still has the right to say he was in fear of his life, which I do tend to disagree with since from the fact on this case it seem unlikely he was in fear of his own life. To me his disregard for the rule of law just proves he thinks that he'll get away with it.

However, I might agree with stand your ground laws in general thought the way they are written I like to point out its ripe for abuse. As proven in this case about a ex Firefighter, who killed a unarmed father of a new born and injured three party goers over their muisc being too loud. He even made a video to prove that he was using code words, which to me is telling. In this case he is using the Texas verison of the law known as the castle doctirne but not badly writen one as the forldia stand your ground laws are.

http://www.khou.com/...-157620465.html

http://www.khou.com/...-157620465.html

Edited by Ryinrea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought Zimmerman might be gutily of involuntry murder he still has the right to say he was in fear of his life, which I do tend to disagree with since from the fact on this case it seem unlikely he was in fear of his own life. To me his disregard for the rule of law just proves he thinks that he'll get away with it.

However, I might agree with stand your ground laws in general thought the way they are written I like to point out its ripe for abuse. As proven in this case about a ex Firefighter, who killed a unarmed father of a new born and injured three party goers over their muisc being too loud. He even made a video to prove that he was using code words, which to me is telling. In this case he is using the Texas verison of the law known as the castle doctirne but not badly writen one as the forldia stand your ground laws are.

http://www.khou.com/...-157620465.html

http://www.khou.com/...-157620465.html

Zimmerman strikes me as someone who isn't quite 'all there', I would say that his house being robbed by 'black youths' has caused some sense of paranoia about the man. This is quite clear from the fact he was even observing Martin and felt the need to phone the police about it, not only that but to not trust the police and then follow Martin himself.

Also, to be fair as to Martin's knuckles being bruised, it's likely Zimmerman told him to 'wait for the police' or tried to stop the boy leaving. It's also worth noting that if a man, paranoid as Hell approached me with a gun I would probably try to defend myself too, Martin likely feared for his life as many would when someone follows them wielding a dangerous weapon.

Just like the case you just posted, it's beggers belief that anyone would just grab a gun like that, it's careless and stupid. If someone is outside your house filming you and your friends whilst wielding a gun, that's terrifying. This is the problem with allowing people to 'bear arms', the end result is that people die. If these two nutjobs didn't see guns as some kind of insurance policy to scare people and get what they want then these people would still be alive and likely the confrontations wouldn't even need to be mentioned in local papers. It's just ridiculous.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, the SYG law would definitely apply to Martin's situation. It MIGHT apply to Zimmerman if the scenario we've discussed before where he abandoned the chase and Martin came after him actually occurred. The guy who initiated the confrontation is not covered (at least under the spirit of the law, but might be under the actual wording - that's the lawyers' playground).

Here is what the Florida law says according to Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia....your-ground_law

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

So even if Zimmerman did instigate the confrontation, if he believed the force being used against him was enough to cause imminent death. (And he had reason to believe that IMHO.) then he is still covered by the SYG law under 776.041, section 2, subsection a. Also Zimmerman is covered because he was not allowed to retreat. Martin had him on the ground, and Zimmerman expressed his desire to retreat by screaming help repeatedly. Thus he is also covered under 776.041, section 2, subsection b.

Seems like regardless of who instigated the controntation, Zimmerman is covered by Martin's overreaction and brutal attack.

Yes, but what you're describing is normal self defense, not the application of the SYG. For normal self defense, you have to prove that your life actually was in danger, not just that you thought it might be. In this case, he was losing a fight. That's something that probably hundreds of people across the country walk away from every day. There's no intrinsic notion for most people that getting beat up means you're probably going to die.

Does Zimmerman's conviction rest on the Florida SYG law alone? No. If he can proove a case of self defense, regardless of the SYG law, he can walk based on Federal law.

Generally all you have to proove is that you had some reason to expect to be killed and had no way to escape. If Zimmerman was down on the ground and having his head knocked against the concrete, then he could not retreat, and if he was blacking out, might have very easily (Depending on what Martin said.) thought he would be killed when he got knocked out. One of Zimmerman's first statements was that Martin, after beating on him a short time, said he was going to Kill him.

As far as Zimmerman being convicted of anything, I don't care either way. I just think shooting someone dead with so many unanswered questions is too big not to press charges and let the court decide.

I do agree that he should go to Trial. And agree he's been an idiot much of the time since the shooting. I just think that he acted within the allowable law. Was he smart about it. No. Was he maybe racistly motivated? Perhaps, since he was watching out specifically for black burglers. But did he commit a murder? ... Not in my opinon.

Edited by DieChecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do agree that he should go to Trial. And agree he's been an idiot much of the time since the shooting. I just think that he acted within the allowable law. Was he smart about it. No. Was he maybe racistly motivated? Perhaps, since he was watching out specifically for black burglers. But did he commit a murder? ... Not in my opinon.

Is Zimmerman being the idiot, or is it his lawyer making the stupid choices? If it's his lawyer, I think I'd be looking for another lawyer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Zimmerman being the idiot, or is it his lawyer making the stupid choices? If it's his lawyer, I think I'd be looking for another lawyer.

I thought he got a better lawyer almost immediately and then against his lawyer's advice he did several things that were stupid... 1) He left the country, and 2) He collected funds and did not report it to his lawyer. I can probably think of several other things he did that were weird or stupid, but those two are the heavys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.