Florida Teen murdered by

[Tata Rompe Pecho]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2441141195001/zimmermans-attorney-seeks-to-ban-certain-words-from-trial/?playlist_id=2114913880001

ROFL WTF IS WRONG WITH THESE GUYS?!

[Tata Rompe Pecho]

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 June 6, 2013 by xFelix

[+DieChecker]

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.

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...

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.

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.

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 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.

[dmurdock36]

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.

[+DieChecker]

interesting take

http://www.wagist.co...edees-testimony

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.

[Tata Rompe Pecho]

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.

(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.

Source: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.048.html

Ready to stop saying asinine things?

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.

I like how you keep purposely mixing up aggravated stalking and simple stalking(I actually just found out this was our problem)... Is this on purpose or do you not understand the difference?

As for Martin having to come toward Zimmerman.. He has the right to do so if he is standing his ground it doesn't mean he literally plants his feet on the ground.. It means he "meets force with force". I like how you say that he could be running for various reasons(Not like witness #8 said Martin had specifically told her he was afraid or anything). I also like how you once again made up some "excuse" as to why he should be following Martin. Although the evidence makes it quite clear, Zimmerman said he did follow Martin the second time.

Oh you want to talk about map position?

Ok map position... Martin did double back, he didn't have any obligation to go home(He also told witness #8 he lost the stalker)... You know who had no legitimate reason for any of his actions that night? I'll let you guess. Why did a person prescribed Temazepam and Librax have a firearm on him? Why didn't Zimmerman just kick the other guys a$$... He had 42lbs (est) on him, but didn't land not even one punch(Was he even trying)? Martin had absolutely no wounds to indicate Zimmerman did anything other than wait until he was bloody, then pull a gun and fire. The chest wound is described as a straight front to back intermediate range gunshot... Meaning if Zimmerman was on the ground he put the gun to Martins chest and shot... But why are there witnesses saying that they weren't even fighting when Zimmerman shot Martin? Did you know that the Sanford crime watch does have local police officers of which actually tell the crime watch members to not pursue, confront, or question any suspect?

[+DieChecker]

(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.

I think you are forgetting there are some ANDs in there. Prove maliciously... "Follows" is only PART of what constitutes Stalking...

You can't even prove "repeatedly"...

[+DieChecker]

I like how you keep purposely mixing up aggravated stalking and simple stalking(I actually just found out this was our problem)... Is this on purpose or do you not understand the difference?

There is no mix up. One involves a threat, which is what is required to qualify for SYG. Being in fear is not enough to provoke SYG, there must be an expectation of Great bodily harm or death, or unlawful force. And those all require some kind of threat.

Proving stalking does not justify SYG, even if you could prove stalking, which I think you have not.

As for Martin having to come toward Zimmerman.. He has the right to do so if he is standing his ground it doesn't mean he literally plants his feet on the ground.. It means he "meets force with force".

Humm... You probably are right... as regarding the SYG law.

Really does not matter, because it cannot be shown that... "He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony"

What "force" was GZ using? He was still far away. Unless you are claiming GZ had his gun out and TM had to charge 20 meters to try to kill him first

Looking at the GF transcript... She said TM was standing right outside his Dad's house when GZ showed up again, and TM would not run, because he was Too Tired. But that can't be true, because the shooting happened about 100 meters away. Unless TM saw GZ and went all that way back to confront him. That is not meeting force with force... it is Rage and Stupidity, and certainly not Fear.

I like how you say that he could be running for various reasons(Not like witness #8 said Martin had specifically told her he was afraid or anything). I also like how you once again made up some "excuse" as to why he should be following Martin. Although the evidence makes it quite clear, Zimmerman said he did follow Martin the second time.

Well, you make something up and so will I.

The GF (Witness #8) said SHE thought he was scared. TM never said he was scared.

Followed him the "second time"... What was the "First time"? GZ never spoke to TM till TM and him met on that sidewalk between the buildings. Or do you have some proof otherwise?

Oh you want to talk about map position?

Ok map position... Martin did double back, he didn't have any obligation to go home

There you go... was admitting that so hard?

Actually, I'm thinking that TM went back toward GZ, because TM was standing outside his dad's house and didn't want GZ to see where he went. He did not get away clean, so he had to do something. Doubtless he could hear the police sirins by then coming closer and closer. He had to do something...

(He also told witness #8 he lost the stalker)... You know who had no legitimate reason for any of his actions that night? I'll let you guess. Why did a person prescribed Temazepam and Librax have a firearm on him? Why didn't Zimmerman just kick the other guys a$$... He had 42lbs (est) on him, but didn't land not even one punch(Was he even trying)? Martin had absolutely no wounds to indicate Zimmerman did anything other than wait until he was bloody, then pull a gun and fire. The chest wound is described as a straight front to back intermediate range gunshot... Meaning if Zimmerman was on the ground he put the gun to Martins chest and shot...

Yeah, why didn't GZ throw a punch? Because... he had no intention of hurting TM, he wanted him to talk to the cops. TM was the one that got out of control and attacked a man that only wanted to watch where he went and have him talk to the cops.

But why are there witnesses saying that they weren't even fighting when Zimmerman shot Martin? Did you know that the Sanford crime watch does have local police officers of which actually tell the crime watch members to not pursue, confront, or question any suspect?

And, there are witnesses who did see them on the ground, fighting. It was dark. The younger witnesses saw a fight. The ones who saw GZ standing over the body or saw only one man, all were old people who had to do things like go to an upstairs window to see what happened. Sorry, but there was a fight, and the gunpower burns show that the shot was basically at skin distance, not at someone on the ground from a standing position.

Edited June 7, 2013 by DieChecker

[Regi]

I only posted the pic to show what the buildings look like.

I must have missed your point.

It appears to me that your bolstering Zimmerman's position with speculation that even Zimmerman never offered because Zimmerman said he saw Martin crossing the yard at 1460 Retreat View Circle, and never suggested anything about what Martin might have been doing behind buildings.

In the re-enactment, the detective asked him if Martin was walking between the buildings and Zimmerman's response was that he saw him crossing the yard. I don't know why, but the detective then asked if Martin "stopped there" and Zimmerman said he did, and that was part of what made Martin suspicious. Zimmerman added that two houses along that location had either been previously burgled or had had suspicious activity. (It's possible that Zimmerman had suspected that 'the burglar' might have returned to the 'scene of the crime' because that had happened in a previous case involving Zimmerman, and weeks prior, there had been a burglary somewhere in the neighborhood).

What gets me is that Zimmerman formed a lot of impressions of Martin for having just driven by on a dark and rainy night. Add to that, the road curves, and if he continued driving- he never implied that he himself ever stopped or pulled over before pulling into the clubhouse- he couldn't have had Martin in sight for more than mere moments.

Also, it would have taken Martin a little while to walk from that point and to the vicinity of the clubhouse, and I believe it was there that Martin was "checking (Zimmerman) out", rather than where Zimmerman last parked, as I've seen it suggested.

The rest of my post isn't directed to any one poster or comment.

Zimmerman said that as he was still parked at the clubhouse, the operator asked him to get to where he could see Martin. Not true. It appears that Martin had continued on his way down Twin Trees, and Zimmerman took it upon himself to keep Martin within his sight.

After a brief time, Zimmerman stated that "he's running" and it's evident (and it's evident to the operator) that Zimmerman exited his vehicle to follow Martin on foot. The operator asked Zimmerman if he was following and Zimmerman said he was, but in the re-enactment, Zimmerman said that the reason he exited his vehicle was to find a street sign.

Re: Zimmerman running, Zimmerman never said he was running; he said he exited his vehicle and walked. (I'm just saying that's what Zimmerman said.)

He said he glanced between the buildings, didn't see anything and he continued up the sidewalk, still for the purpose of getting an address...an address which he never got despite having had more than sufficient time to do so.

In a previous call to police, Zimmerman said that "they typically run away...and I think they head to...the next neighborhood over."

In this call, he'd indicated to the operator that Martin was headed toward the back entrance- and so I'm inclined to think that's where Zimmerman would have likely assumed Martin might be headed, and that he himself might have headed that way, possibly via the route he thought Martin had taken, or if he didn't see Martin between the buildings, then he could have thought he might see Martin from the vantage point of Retreat View.

Zimmerman's description of the confrontation sounds dramatized to me, and apart from that, there's discrepancies.

In his written account, he said that Martin punched him and he fell backward to the ground; in the re-enactment, he said he stumbled forward several steps, but he then added that he waved his arms trying to push Martin away.

From that point forward, he appeared to me to show a stunning lack of defense, period, never mind for a man who believed he was fighting for his life. Apart from his statement that he tried to stop Martin from smothering him, I don't know what he was ever doing with his hands.

He said he "feels" like Martin saw the gun, and that's when Martin told him that he was going to die.

Apart from melodramatic, that strikes me as a very odd (and very dangerous!) thing to state before gaining actual possession of a weapon one apparently intends to use.

I don't know if that statement was actually spoken or not, but if it was, it strikes me as what the armed person would say.

I'd say the same thing about the screams. It seems the unarmed person would be the one screaming; it seems the person who got shot would be the one who'd been screaming.

Zimmerman said he didn't know the gunshot hit Martin, yet the screaming immediately stopped when the shot was fired.

In a link I posted, there's a report involving Zimmerman's ex-fiance in which she states that Zimmerman's statements "reversed" what had actually happened.

Edited June 7, 2013 by regi

[Tata Rompe Pecho]

I think you are forgetting there are some ANDs in there. Prove maliciously... "Follows" is only PART of what constitutes Stalking...

You can't even prove "repeatedly"...

I will break it down for you, so that you may understand it.

(See where there is no , between repeatedly and follow? That means the "and" was joining "repeatedly" to the previous clauses. The "and" conjunction is not used to join any clauses after itself.)

(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.

See the and implies ALL of the above must be done. The or means ONE of the above must be done.

Not being able to prove "repeatedly":

He leaves his vehicle once more and also heads towards [F], most likely via the sidewalk above [G].

Both Zimmerman’s and DeeDee’s statements seem to agree on that.

Both parties agree that Zimmerman followed Martin twice.

Source: http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/the-missing-230-and-deedees-testimony

a: to make, do, or perform again <repeat an experiment>

Source: http://www.merriam-w...ctionary/repeat

Edited June 7, 2013 by xFelix

[+DieChecker]

I must have missed your point.

LOOK. Some other poster said that Trayvon was going between houses and I posted a pic of the buildings to show that it is not possible to go "beween" the houses.

I'm sorry if you took offense to the pic I used and to my inadvertantly defending Trayvon.

I'd say the same thing about the screams. It seems the unarmed person would be the one screaming; it seems the person who got shot would be the one who'd been screaming.

It does not seem that the person who was actually injured, with a broken nose and head cuts from the sidewalk would be the one screaming for help?

[+DieChecker]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57587259-504083/george-zimmerman-trial-experts-say-self-defense-claim-could-be-tough-to-refute-in-trayvon-martin-killing/

"There's only two people who know exactly what happened, and one of them is no longer alive," said Florida criminal defense attorney Brian Tannebaum, president of the Florida Association of Bar Defense Lawyers and past president of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "It's a hard burden when Zimmerman is going to say, 'Listen, I was in fear, I got into a fight with this kid, I didn't know him, I didn't know what he was going to do.' What is out there to dispute what he's saying? That's the difficult part."

"The state is going to have a hard time refuting the claim of self defense- that's where the case can easily be won by the defense," Baez said. "The state not only has to put forward their evidence, they have to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and do so beyond a reasonable doubt - I don't think they can."

Baez, however, says the fact that Zimmerman himself called 911 may actually lend weight to his self-defense claim.

"You don't call the police if you're trying to murder someone," Baez said.

[+DieChecker]

I will break it down for you, so that you may understand it.

(See where there is no , between repeatedly and follow? That means the "and" was joining "repeatedly" to the previous clauses. The "and" conjunction is not used to join any clauses after itself.)

(willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly) -> (follows, harasses, or cyberstalks)

See the and implies ALL of the above must be done. The or means ONE of the above must be done.

Not being able to prove "repeatedly":

Both parties agree that Zimmerman followed Martin twice.

Source: http://www.wagist.co...edees-testimony

So, he have to assume the following?

1) GZ watched TM while on a 911 call.

2) TM ran off and disappeared.

3) GZ got out of truck and followed TM, while still on the 911 call.

4) GZ went back to his truck and got in.

5) TM came back. Then ran off again. And disappeared again.

6) GZ again got out of his truck and again followed TM.

7) GZ found TM behind the buildings, because TM decided not to run anymore.

Is that what you think happened? If so, then I can agree with a lot more of what you are saying. But again the only one with proof of this theory is GZ, and the liar GF.

[+DieChecker]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57588085-504083/george-zimmerman-trial-judge-to-weigh-possible-prosecutor-sanctions-post-trial/

(CBS) A court information technology director took the stand at a pre-trial hearing in the George Zimmerman case Thursday and testified that he found more than 1,000 additional photos -- including photos of marijuana and a hand holding a gun - and some deleted text messages and on Trayvon Martin's phone.

Fourth Judicial Circuit Information Technology Director Ben Kruidbos said that he discovered the additional texts and photos that weren't included in a report sent to the defense team after requesting a source file from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. The photos, he said, included images of marijuana, a hand holding a gun, naked girls that appeared to be underage, and a clump of jewelry on a bed.

His lawyer, Wesley White, a former employee of the Fourth Circuit State Attorney's Office and former co-worker of prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda, testified Thursday that he called defense attorney Mark O'Mara to ask whether O'Mara had received the new information. O'Mara replied that he hadn't, White said.

Oh, and the judge last week did not say the photos and texts were banned from the trial, only from the Opening Statements.

[Tata Rompe Pecho]

http://www.cbsnews.c...martin-killing/

"It's a hard burden when Zimmerman is going to say, 'Listen, I was in fear, I got into a fight with this kid, I didn't know him, I didn't know what he was going to do.' What is out there to dispute what he's saying? That's the difficult part."

In that article, the expert used that as his argument that he defended himself.. He was in a fight he was losing and felt "fear". The problem with that argument is Martin's autopsy reveals that Zimmerman did not fight, he simply fired his weapon. He did not defend himself when the issue was not a threat of great bodily harm or death, he let the issue escalate and then fired when he feared that it was.

I didn't even mention that the whole confrontation was of his own making, or that he reached for his "pocket" during the confrontation, or even that his following was malicious because he was instructed by his crime watch program that he was not to pursue any suspicious person.

I also didn't mention that although he stated that he was prescribed controlled substances, the police officers never tested him for them being in his system. Another fun fact about those officers is that some of them were actually also members of the crime watch.

I do agree with the events you listed, because both witnesses and Zimmerman agree with those events.

Even then his stalking someone turned into them standing their ground, his "self-defense" against someone standing their ground lead to death.

Can you explain to us why someone prescribed Librax and Temazepam was using a firearm?

How about you explain why it is that the crime watch specifically tells it's volunteers not to pursue, but Zimmerman did anyway?

Edited June 7, 2013 by xFelix

[+DieChecker]

He did not defend himself when the issue was not a threat of great bodily harm or death, he let the issue escalate and then fired when he feared that it was.

And this is a problem.... why? He waited till there was great threat of bodily harm, then used force. That is the exact writting of the law. The only arguement is if he caused the fight or not. His firing the gun is totally justified as defense, as it meets all the criteria, but can be considered manslaughter if Z initiated the fight.

I do agree with those events, because both witnesses and Zimmerman agree with those events.

Ok. Your statements make a lot more sense now.

Can you explain to us why someone prescribed Librax and Temazepam was using a firearm?

How about you explain why it is that the crime watch specifically tells it's volunteers not to pursue, but Zimmerman did anyway?

Is there a State law preventing the handling or carrying of firearms when on these or other drugs?

Z pulled and fired his gun as a act of last resort. The act of TM starting a fist fight with him implies that to be true. If GZ had his gun out, or if the gun could be easily seen, TM would not have tried to beat down GZ.

The homeowners association rules really are not a factor. They are not legally (criminally) binding, AFAIK. And probably punishable by a HOA fine.

Librax is used to treat ulcers, so probably your going to see it being used a lot by cops. One of the active ingredients is an anti-anxiety, but I don't see where the internet says the person is incapacitated or judgement affected.

Temazepam is an insomnia drug. I'd be very interested if it was in Zs system at the time, but otherwise the affects from even the night before probably would have passed by the time of the fight with TM. It is used by the military to promote mission readyness, so it likely does not have affects the day after.

Edited June 7, 2013 by DieChecker

[Tata Rompe Pecho]

And this is a problem.... why? He waited till there was great threat of bodily harm, then used force. That is the exact writting of the law. The only arguement is if he caused the fight or not. His firing the gun is totally justified as defense, as it meets all the criteria, but can be considered manslaughter if Z initiated the fight.

Ok. Your statements make a lot more sense now.

Is there a State law preventing the handling or carrying of firearms when on these or other drugs?

Z pulled and fired his gun as a act of last resort. The act of TM starting a fist fight with him implies that to be true. If GZ had his gun out, or if the gun could be easily seen, TM would not have tried to beat down GZ.

The homeowners association rules really are not a factor. They are not legally (criminally) binding, AFAIK. And probably punishable by a HOA fine.

Librax is used to treat ulcers, so probably your going to see it being used a lot by cops. One of the active ingredients is an anti-anxiety, but I don't see where the internet says the person is incapacitated or judgement affected.

Temazepam is an insomnia drug. I'd be very interested if it was in Zs system at the time, but otherwise the affects from even the night before probably would have passed by the time of the fight with TM. It is used by the military to promote mission readyness, so it likely does not have affects the day after.

Well, when you initiate a fight by following and confronting them, then reaching for you pocket during the confrontation.. You can't defend yourself, because you are the attacker. The person you followed and then threatened is the victim (defender), he can defend himself from your threats. When he does, you have no legal recourse. This is FL common law.

His knowing that he had no legal authority to follow Martin is a factor, because it clearly demonstrates malicious intent. He knew he couldn't legally follow Martin and he still did.

The prescriptions:

Librax - Has side effects that would impair someone's ability to make sound decisions.(This is more moral based judgement then law)

Temazepam - Has ingredients on the controlled substance list, which would void his firearm permit.

(Some reports claim that he was also prescribed Aderall [sp])

He would have in effect been illegally carrying a firearm, that resulted in the death of another.

There are many reasons as to why Zimmerman is in the wrong here, but the simple fact that he ran head long into someone he claimed was drugged and suspicious with a firearm, when he knew he shouldn't have.. Well that's just disturbing.

[Papagiorgio]

Well, when you initiate a fight by following and confronting them, then reaching for you pocket during the confrontation.. You can't defend yourself, because you are the attacker. The person you followed and then threatened is the victim (defender), he can defend himself from your threats. When he does, you have no legal recourse. This is FL common law.

His knowing that he had no legal authority to follow Martin is a factor, because it clearly demonstrates malicious intent. He knew he couldn't legally follow Martin and he still did.

The prescriptions:

Librax - Has side effects that would impair someone's ability to make sound decisions.(This is more moral based judgement then law)

Temazepam - Has ingredients on the controlled substance list, which would void his firearm permit.

(Some reports claim that he was also prescribed Aderall [sp])

He would have in effect been illegally carrying a firearm, that resulted in the death of another.

There are many reasons as to why Zimmerman is in the wrong here, but the simple fact that he ran head long into someone he claimed was drugged and suspicious with a firearm, when he knew he shouldn't have.. Well that's just disturbing.

I don't believe his intent was malicious (Characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm). He was watching out for his neighbors, that's hardly intending to do harm. Was he the attacker? The only people who know for sure are TM, and GZ.

Was GZ breaking the law following TM. I don't think so. According to what you posted he would have had to willfully, maliciously, AND repeatedly follow TM. So all three are needed for it to be stalking, and as I said his intent IMO would not be malicious. So no stalking.

Not everyone suffers from all a medications side effects, and Temazepam is a sleep aid so he probably wasn't using it at the time.

In the end though it only really matters what the twelve people on the jury believe.

[Tata Rompe Pecho]

I don't believe his intent was malicious (Characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm). He was watching out for his neighbors, that's hardly intending to do harm. Was he the attacker? The only people who know for sure are TM, and GZ.

Was GZ breaking the law following TM. I don't think so. According to what you posted he would have had to willfully, maliciously, AND repeatedly follow TM. So all three are needed for it to be stalking, and as I said his intent IMO would not be malicious. So no stalking.

Not everyone suffers from all a medications side effects, and Temazepam is a sleep aid so he probably wasn't using it at the time.

In the end though it only really matters what the twelve people on the jury believe.

Disagree with everything else, but I agree with the bold statement.

Btw: When someone runs from you and you follow them they are showing clear signs of distress and you are purposely causing them more distress = malicious.

As for the medications, we will never know because the police officers knew he was prescribed medication.. They just never tested him for it.

This isn't about side effects, this is that Florida gun owners law says that if you require certain chemicals to balance yourself out you shouldn't have a firearm in the first place.

[Papagiorgio]

Disagree with everything else, but I agree with the bold statement.

Btw: When someone runs from you and you follow them they are showing clear signs of distress and you are purposely causing them more distress = malicious.

As for the medications, we will never know because the police officers knew he was prescribed medication.. They just never tested him for it.

This isn't about side effects, this is that Florida gun owners law says that if you require certain chemicals to balance yourself out you shouldn't have a firearm in the first place.

GZ's intent was not malicious. Whether TM believed it was is another matter.

BTW people run from other people for many reasons. It is not necessarily "a sign of distress". He may have been running because he was up to no good, and didn't want to get caught.

None of those prescriptions are for a chemical imbalance.

Edited June 7, 2013 by Papagiorgio

[Heru]

There is no mix up. One involves a threat, which is what is required to qualify for SYG. Being in fear is not enough to provoke SYG, there must be an expectation of Great bodily harm or death, or unlawful force. And those all require some kind of threat.

Proving stalking does not justify SYG, even if you could prove stalking, which I think you have not.

Humm... You probably are right... as regarding the SYG law.

Really does not matter, because it cannot be shown that... "He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony"

What "force" was GZ using? He was still far away. Unless you are claiming GZ had his gun out and TM had to charge 20 meters to try to kill him first

Looking at the GF transcript... She said TM was standing right outside his Dad's house when GZ showed up again, and TM would not run, because he was Too Tired. But that can't be true, because the shooting happened about 100 meters away. Unless TM saw GZ and went all that way back to confront him. That is not meeting force with force... it is Rage and Stupidity, and certainly not Fear.

Well, you make something up and so will I.

The GF (Witness #8) said SHE thought he was scared. TM never said he was scared.

Followed him the "second time"... What was the "First time"? GZ never spoke to TM till TM and him met on that sidewalk between the buildings. Or do you have some proof otherwise?

There you go... was admitting that so hard?

Actually, I'm thinking that TM went back toward GZ, because TM was standing outside his dad's house and didn't want GZ to see where he went. He did not get away clean, so he had to do something. Doubtless he could hear the police sirins by then coming closer and closer. He had to do something...

Yeah, why didn't GZ throw a punch? Because... he had no intention of hurting TM, he wanted him to talk to the cops. TM was the one that got out of control and attacked a man that only wanted to watch where he went and have him talk to the cops.

And, there are witnesses who did see them on the ground, fighting. It was dark. The younger witnesses saw a fight. The ones who saw GZ standing over the body or saw only one man, all were old people who had to do things like go to an upstairs window to see what happened. Sorry, but there was a fight, and the gunpower burns show that the shot was basically at skin distance, not at someone on the ground from a standing position.

Haven't caught up to the last page yet but wanted to point out M doesn't have to wait and talk to the cops. Unless Z was making a citizens arrest. But since M didnt commit a crime in Z's pressence it would be considered kidnapping(I think it gets a diff term but its pretty much the same holding someone against there will). You cant just detain someone till the cops come and you cant arrest someone till they commit a crime. In my state you have to see them commit a felony or a mister; be told they committed a felony by a third person but for a mister you have to personally see it.

xFelix: Im Licensed in Okie USA. I'm curious though in Florida did some PI(s) take some of your classes with you or is all security and PI classes separate? Also I agree to disagree with you on the stalking law.

[Regi]

LOOK. Some other poster said that Trayvon was going between houses and I posted a pic of the buildings to show that it is not possible to go "beween" the houses.

I'm sorry if you took offense to the pic I used and to my inadvertantly defending Trayvon.

It does not seem that the person who was actually injured, with a broken nose and head cuts from the sidewalk would be the one screaming for help?

No, you look. You said "What Zimmerman probably reported was going up on people's yards, and looking around...maybe onto their patios, or looking in windows."

My point was that Zimmerman never said anything about people's patios, or what he thought Martin might have been doing before he spotted him in front of that house, and since Zimmerman can't see through buildings, then according to his account- it would only be speculation, anyway.

I went on to try to explain why I, personally, have an issue with Zimmerman's interpretation of Martin. If he had driven by Martin just that one time, never having stopped or of even slowing down (he indicated neither) then that gave him what would have to be just moments to have concluded that Martin's behavior was suspicious... that he was "a real suspicious guy" as he stated at the very start of the police call.

I'm at a loss as to why you did this: "beween".

Re: those injuries, as I've said before, I don't know how or when those occurred, and since I don't take Zimmerman's word for it, I'll have to see what other evidence is presented during the trial.

Regardless, it doesn't make sense to me that Zimmerman would continue to stand and face Martin after he denied he had a problem, and then start fumbling around for his phone without explanation.

He apparently expected Martin to wait there while he retrieved something from one of his pockets.

[Tata Rompe Pecho]

Haven't caught up to the last page yet but wanted to point out M doesn't have to wait and talk to the cops. Unless Z was making a citizens arrest. But since M didnt commit a crime in Z's pressence it would be considered kidnapping(I think it gets a diff term but its pretty much the same holding someone against there will). You cant just detain someone till the cops come and you cant arrest someone till they commit a crime. In my state you have to see them commit a felony or a mister; be told they committed a felony by a third person but for a mister you have to personally see it.

xFelix: Im Licensed in Okie USA. I'm curious though in Florida did some PI(s) take some of your classes with you or is all security and PI classes separate? Also I agree to disagree with you on the stalking law.

PI and Security train separate. Most PI's do take Security courses(D&G) though. The more certifications/licenses you get under your belt, the better.

As for the stalking we will have to disagree, but even if we disregard stalking, we still have a person that admitted to following and then confronting a suspicious person in which he reached for his pocket, an "altercation" ensued, and that lead to the death of another.. They can still tag him for murder 2, if his interview of him admitting all this is used in court.

Edited June 7, 2013 by xFelix

[Myles]

GZ's intent was not malicious. Whether TM believed it was is another matter.

BTW people run from other people for many reasons. It is not necessarily "a sign of distress". He may have been running because he was up to no good, and didn't want to get caught.

None of those prescriptions are for a chemical imbalance.

I agree. I think it is more probable that he ran to avoid being caught.

[Heru]

I agree. I think it is more probable that he ran to avoid being caught.

No if he was running to not get caught, he would have kept running and hopped some fences and got away to never return that night.

The kid wasn't a Straight A Book worm, more like a wankster. Doesn't mean he was up to anything nor does it warrant said behavior toward him.

If your walking around at night just shooting the breeze and you notice someone following you. Some might run home. But some (I would be in this category when I was in HS) would fight back.

Now you might say we don't know who struck first. But is physically attacking someone the only way to make someone feel threatened and in danger?

Lets say it was your child or spouse who was being followed and they confronted that person. And a fight broke out. Would you say your spouse or child started the fight or would the one following them be the aggressor.

And under Florida law wouldnt he or she be within legal right to stand his ground and defend himself if someone takes an aggressive act toward you. Or is the purpose of the law allow you to stalk(not stalking in the legal sense) and when said prey confronts you your then allowed to kill your prey under the guise of defense?