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 don't know that Zimmerman was beaten near unconsciousness, and that's why he shot and killed Martin.

I have a lot of questions about this case and if you have questions, I don't know what they are. I do understand that you don't give any benefit of the doubt to Martin.

As you do not give much to George.

I understand how George should be questioned, and questioned thoroughly. But most evidence backs his story up. To me it seems he was doing what I would want a neighborhood watch to do. He saw a suspicious character, called the cops and followed. Had this happened without the cops being called I would think a little different.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you do not give much to George.

I understand how George should be questioned, and questioned thoroughly. But most evidence backs his story up. To me it seems he was doing what I would want a neighborhood watch to do. He saw a suspicious character, called the cops and followed. Had this happened without the cops being called I would think a little different.

I don't know what all the evidence is, but I find the evidence that is known questionable, and so I believe it's correct that the case is going to trial.

I don't say "had this happened" or "had that happened" because that's not what DID happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So much for discussion.

In your mind, you've already tried, convicted, and hung him. It's people like that spreading half truths, etc, (just like the media) that is going to cause one hell of a sh!t-storm when this trial ends, no matter the verdict.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In your mind, you've already tried, convicted, and hung him. It's people like that spreading half truths, etc, (just like the media) that is going to cause one hell of a sh!t-storm when this trial ends, no matter the verdict.

First, you don't know what's in my mind.

Second, apparently, my previous comment requires clarification. Guilt or innocence isn't considered when determining manner of death. Martin's death is and always will be classified as a homicide.

Third, I can't speak for others, but I DO NOT spread half truths.

I've expressed my impressions, interpretations and opinions of what I know of the evidence that's been made available, and I've expressed those, but it's obvious to me that the dialogue is limited to only facts and circumstances which could be or could be supportive of Zimmerman's innocence.

Edited to add that I have not tried, convicted and hung Zimmerman. I've question the evidence of the event.

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

First, you don't know what's in my mind.

Second, apparently, my previous comment requires clarification. Guilt or innocence isn't considered when determining manner of death. Martin's death is and always will be classified as a homicide.

Third, I can't speak for others, but I DO NOT spread half truths.

I've expressed my impressions, interpretations and opinions of what I know of the evidence that's been made available, and I've expressed those, but it's obvious to me that the dialogue is limited to only facts and circumstances which could be or could be supportive of Zimmerman's innocence.

Edited to add that I have not tried, convicted and hung Zimmerman. I've question the evidence of the event.

I agree. Everyone gathers info and has their own opinion. Nothing wrong with that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, you don't know what's in my mind.

sure we do, you made it perfectly clear. Z is guilty and TM is an inocent child. also i have a suspision, it is race factor that plays big role in the way you see situation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you do not give much to George.

I understand how George should be questioned, and questioned thoroughly. But most evidence backs his story up. To me it seems he was doing what I would want a neighborhood watch to do. He saw a suspicious character, called the cops and followed. Had this happened without the cops being called I would think a little different.

Myles no this is not how a neighborhood watch should act. Neighborhood watch doesn't give you any special authority that a normal citizen does not have. WTF do you think the police were going to do, arrest him for being black with a hoodie on? What crime did he see him commit? All he had to do was say "Hello my name is *blah* I haven't seen you around here did you just move in" or something to that affect.

Even a security guard knows you don't go around stalking someone just because how there dressed, well except for certain circumstances like someone in a heavy coat when its 90 degrees out. And there are other clues to look for, usually suspicious behavior not suspicious attire.

Now if he was looking thru windows or jumping fences or doing any thing that gives "Reasonable Suspicion" thats different but even then unless he has something on him that would be evidence to an attempted crime there is no *** point. The key word being "reasonable" suspicion, someone walking on the street at night isn't that unusual. Unless hes doing suspicious behavior that could result in a crime.

The Z guy was an *** idiot, who watched to much tv. The only reason hes not in jail is because of the stand your ground law in that state. My state has very lax gun laws but if it happened here his @55 would be in jail cause like most states you cant just shoot someone and say self defense cause you would have to prove your life was in danger to justify even pulling a gun (except in your house) and the suspicious person would be Z the guy who started the confrontation not the kid walking along minding his own business.

If he was smart he would have had a Camera and a tape recorder(now most people use there cells). And done surveillance and had good notes. Kept his distance and when he was in the act of committing a crime make a citizens arrest(yes believe it or not you have the power to arrest someone, just make sure you do it right and no you don't read them the Miranda rights) then call the cops or call the cops and have them do it.

The kid did nothing illegal WTH did the cops need to be there for.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Myles no this is not how a neighborhood watch should act. Neighborhood watch doesn't give you any special authority that a normal citizen does not have. WTF do you think the police were going to do, arrest him for being black with a hoodie on? What crime did he see him commit? All he had to do was say "Hello my name is *blah* I haven't seen you around here did you just move in" or something to that affect.

Supposedly Z saw him going around in people's yards and acting weird. But, I do agree that is not enough to warrent calling the cops. Even here (In Oregon) in almost all white neighborhoods, seeing a black man is not a cause for alarm. Surely in Florida there was more then a single family of black people living in that neighborhood.

I do think however that Z had nothing to prevent him from following someone he thought was a danger. Stalking only occurs if there is no legitimate reason for following someone, and I feel that following someone to observe where they are going (From a discrete distance) is not (should not) be a crime.

Even a security guard knows you don't go around stalking someone just because how there dressed, well except for certain circumstances like someone in a heavy coat when its 90 degrees out. And there are other clues to look for, usually suspicious behavior not suspicious attire.

Now if he was looking thru windows or jumping fences or doing any thing that gives "Reasonable Suspicion" thats different but even then unless he has something on him that would be evidence to an attempted crime there is no *** point. The key word being "reasonable" suspicion, someone walking on the street at night isn't that unusual. Unless hes doing suspicious behavior that could result in a crime.

Z's first sentence to the 911 operator was that he saw someone acting suspiciously. If the 911 operator had felt that Z was making a stupid call, she probably would have told him so.

Zimmerman:

We’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood and there’s a real suspicious guy. It’s Retreat View Circle. The best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle.

This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about. [00:25]

911 dispatcher:

OK, is he White, Black, or Hispanic?

Zimmerman:

He looks black.

911 dispatcher:

Did you see what he was wearing?

Zimmerman:

Yeah, a dark hoodie like a gray hoodie. He wore jeans or sweat pants and white tennis shoes. He’s here now … he’s just staring. [00:42]

911 dispatcher:

He’s just walking around the area, the houses? OK.

The Z guy was an *** idiot, who watched to much tv. The only reason hes not in jail is because of the stand your ground law in that state. My state has very lax gun laws but if it happened here his @55 would be in jail cause like most states you cant just shoot someone and say self defense cause you would have to prove your life was in danger to justify even pulling a gun (except in your house) and the suspicious person would be Z the guy who started the confrontation not the kid walking along minding his own business.

If Z had not made a 911 call, then being the only one wounded, he would have been in the clear. Z's broken nose and cuts are enough evidence to support a Self Defense claim. As well as the lack of such on TM. The arguement that Z somehow got beat up, then turned it around so he was standing over TM, who was on the ground screaming, and shot him execution style is ridiculous.

If he was smart he would have had a Camera and a tape recorder(now most people use there cells). And done surveillance and had good notes. Kept his distance and when he was in the act of committing a crime make a citizens arrest(yes believe it or not you have the power to arrest someone, just make sure you do it right and no you don't read them the Miranda rights) then call the cops or call the cops and have them do it.

That is a good idea. Z should have taken pics of TM when he was running off and then again when he came back to beat him up.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Myles no this is not how a neighborhood watch should act. Neighborhood watch doesn't give you any special authority that a normal citizen does not have. WTF do you think the police were going to do, arrest him for being black with a hoodie on? What crime did he see him commit? All he had to do was say "Hello my name is *blah* I haven't seen you around here did you just move in" or something to that affect.

Even a security guard knows you don't go around stalking someone just because how there dressed, well except for certain circumstances like someone in a heavy coat when its 90 degrees out. And there are other clues to look for, usually suspicious behavior not suspicious attire.

Now if he was looking thru windows or jumping fences or doing any thing that gives "Reasonable Suspicion" thats different but even then unless he has something on him that would be evidence to an attempted crime there is no *** point. The key word being "reasonable" suspicion, someone walking on the street at night isn't that unusual. Unless hes doing suspicious behavior that could result in a crime.

The Z guy was an *** idiot, who watched to much tv. The only reason hes not in jail is because of the stand your ground law in that state. My state has very lax gun laws but if it happened here his @55 would be in jail cause like most states you cant just shoot someone and say self defense cause you would have to prove your life was in danger to justify even pulling a gun (except in your house) and the suspicious person would be Z the guy who started the confrontation not the kid walking along minding his own business.

If he was smart he would have had a Camera and a tape recorder(now most people use there cells). And done surveillance and had good notes. Kept his distance and when he was in the act of committing a crime make a citizens arrest(yes believe it or not you have the power to arrest someone, just make sure you do it right and no you don't read them the Miranda rights) then call the cops or call the cops and have them do it.

The kid did nothing illegal WTH did the cops need to be there for.

He said he seen Trayvon walking between houses. That is trespassing if nothing else. Maybe he should not have called the cops, but he thought there was reason. Since he did call the cops, it supports his story.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Myles no this is not how a neighborhood watch should act. Neighborhood watch doesn't give you any special authority that a normal citizen does not have. WTF do you think the police were going to do, arrest him for being black with a hoodie on? What crime did he see him commit? All he had to do was say "Hello my name is *blah* I haven't seen you around here did you just move in" or something to that affect.

Even a security guard knows you don't go around stalking someone just because how there dressed, well except for certain circumstances like someone in a heavy coat when its 90 degrees out. And there are other clues to look for, usually suspicious behavior not suspicious attire.

Now if he was looking thru windows or jumping fences or doing any thing that gives "Reasonable Suspicion" thats different but even then unless he has something on him that would be evidence to an attempted crime there is no *** point. The key word being "reasonable" suspicion, someone walking on the street at night isn't that unusual. Unless hes doing suspicious behavior that could result in a crime.

The Z guy was an *** idiot, who watched to much tv. The only reason hes not in jail is because of the stand your ground law in that state. My state has very lax gun laws but if it happened here his @55 would be in jail cause like most states you cant just shoot someone and say self defense cause you would have to prove your life was in danger to justify even pulling a gun (except in your house) and the suspicious person would be Z the guy who started the confrontation not the kid walking along minding his own business.

If he was smart he would have had a Camera and a tape recorder(now most people use there cells). And done surveillance and had good notes. Kept his distance and when he was in the act of committing a crime make a citizens arrest(yes believe it or not you have the power to arrest someone, just make sure you do it right and no you don't read them the Miranda rights) then call the cops or call the cops and have them do it.

The kid did nothing illegal WTH did the cops need to be there for.

You are wrong on some key points, Zimmerman did initially invoke Stand Your Ground immunity but he later waived that immunity. Even if he wouldn't have waived the immunity, he would still have had to prove that he didn't put himself in harms way and the danger was forced upon him.

(I'm guessing he knows something we don't about this)

Citizen's Arrest in Florida is meant for LEO outside of their jurisdiction, so in essence the laws surrounding such are very... Dangerous. Even the LEO advise people against exercising that right, because it can very well land them in jail.

Citizen's Arrest may NOT include "force" in detention, the person must willingly surrender.

Citizen's Arrest is ONLY allowed if you witness a felony taking place, and you will attend court as the arresting officer would.. Full sworn statement evidence etc etc will be presented.. If your claims were untrue you could be found guilty of false arrest, if you used force to detain the suspect you could be found guilty of kidnapping...

As for following someone at a distance because they "seem" suspicious, unless you are an appointed LEO you still don't have the right to do that.

Think about this next time you make that statement:

Your daughter/sister/mother are out shopping and a man starts stalking them around all the stores, the entire time he maintains his distance but they're afraid he might try something in the parking lot.. They call the cops and the cops ask what he's doing and he gladly says "These women are suspicious, they look like possible shoplifters." and the cops let him continue.. What do you think the chances are for those women getting raped/robbed/murdered in the parking lot?

There is very few known reasons to follow anyone in the state of Florida, the main ones are:

1) A sworn LEO instructs you to do so. (Yes, an LEO can use citizens as an extension of himself.)

2) You are trying to protect yourself/other from great bodily harm/death. (If he chases someone with a weapon, you can chase him down to save that person.)

As for calling the cops supporting his story:

Calling the cops implies he felt that the person might have been dangerous. This can either make his case or break his case. It just boils down to whether he followed or was followed. In his interview he claims that he had turned and started walking away and then Martin jumped out of nowhere and started attacking him. In the official news story it says that he followed Martin, they fought and Martin was shot. If he was attacked as he says he had every right to fire his weapon, his call to the cops further exemplifies his belief that this person was dangerous. Now, here is the problem because Zimmerman did admit to some extent of following... If he followed Martin and that lead to a fight, he did not have a right to fire his weapon.

Just all about what Zimmerman said, if he hasn't been lying there is no possible way he is guilty.. Now if he has been lying he will be found guilty.

The arguement that Z somehow got beat up, then turned it around so he was standing over TM, who was on the ground screaming, and shot him execution style is ridiculous.

Grab a mango, put it somewhere and try to draw and shoot it while you're thrashing your head about...

Now stop thrashing your head, walk up close draw and take your shot.

What situation gives you a better chance at hitting the heart with a single shot?

I'm not saying this is or isn't what happened, i'm just saying that the claim of it being ridiculous is asinine. The numbers support the reason to believe in these claims, although they do not prove them. It is after all just odds, and some people win the lottery.

We will see soon enough, in the case of Zimmerman the truth will set him free. If he has been saying the truth that is...

Edited by xFelix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sure we do, you made it perfectly clear. Z is guilty and TM is an inocent child. also i have a suspision, it is race factor that plays big role in the way you see situation.

Observation: This comes from a poster who pointed out where I'm from.

Another observation: You have no basis whatsoever for whatever it is you've implied, but your comment caused me to have a suspicion, too, and I found that 6 of your last 11 posts referenced race.

There were no witnesses to headbanging on the sidewalk, or to the shooting, and I don't know how or when those injuries occurred and I don't take Zimmerman's statements to the bank.

Edited by regi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Martin "cutting through yards" and walking between houses, it's an obvious shortcut to get into the neighborhood from Oregon Avenue for anyone on foot.

Zimmerman appears to me to embellish. Every call to report a suspicious person began with "Yeah, we've had burglaries..."which appears to be an attempt to justify his suspicion.

In his written statement, I would have expected him to begin with the events of that particular evening, instead, he began by explaining about an event that happened some time previous.

Zimmerman's made such statements as Martin was "looking at all the houses", "looking in houses", "looking all around at all the houses".

By Zimmerman's account, he drove past Martin, and then parked at the clubhouse. It was dark and raining, and I don't know how he could have made such observations simply by driving by that would have prompted him to pull over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said my state is different you cant pull a gun on someone for self defense outside your home, unless he had intent and capability for lethal harm to you or someone else. As in he had a gun or knife.

I guess citizens arrest is different here too. You can arrest anyone if you see someone commit a felon or misdemeanor ; or if someone tells you someone commited a felon but not with a misdemeanor.

The fight sounds BS to me. I would find it hard to pull out my handgun from my pocket take off the safety (possible safety wasnt on) all the while im on my back getting punched or my head bashed in. IMO I think they were wrestling for the gun, but I dont know and I never mentioned anything about executioner style or Z over M.

I don't know all the details but everything he did concerning stopping these robberies was wrong. As a neighborhood watch most don't patrol the area, and if you do you do it with other watch members in the area and never alone.

Also one kid walking the street at night isnt the one robbing the houses, specially in a gated community. Could he have been involved in them sure but at most at the moment he was doing intel on possible house break-ins. Nothing that would get him into trouble.

I can go on and on but Im not saying Z is some diabolical racial murderer but that he made some bad choices that caused this to happen. And he should be an example of what not to do as a neighborhood watch.

But just as Z saw M suspicious isn't it plausible that M saw Z just as suspicious? There were reports of robberies where he just moved in and a suspicious male was following him.

If M jumped Z than also that was a bad Choices on M, both handled there fear and paranoia wrong.

On the fence though if Z should get some jail time or if his life is screwed up more than enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

; or if someone tells you someone commited a felon but not with a misdemeanor.

no you can't, even cops can't arrest someone just cuz you told cops, the guy commited a crime, you need to wright a statment, take it to the judge, and than he will issue arrest warrant.

but don't take my word for it, try to arrest someone cuz someone else told you they commited a crime, go ahead, do it, than tell us how it went, but get a lawer first, cuz you'll be sued.

it is called hearsay, and it is not a reason for you to arrest anyone, especially if you are civilian. actually you can be arrested for assult, or simply shot if in ccw state.

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

Supposedly Z saw him going around in people's yards and acting weird. But, I do agree that is not enough to warrent calling the cops. Even here (In Oregon) in almost all white neighborhoods, seeing a black man is not a cause for alarm. Surely in Florida there was more then a single family of black people living in that neighborhood.

I disagree with the bolded. If you see someone that to you seems suspicious, always call the cops. If I saw a stranger walking in and out of my neighbors homes I would immediately call the police. Especially if there have been recent break ins. Better safe than sorry.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for following someone at a distance because they "seem" suspicious, unless you are an appointed LEO you still don't have the right to do that.

Where does the law say that?

Think about this next time you make that statement:

Your daughter/sister/mother are out shopping and a man starts stalking them around all the stores, the entire time he maintains his distance but they're afraid he might try something in the parking lot.. They call the cops and the cops ask what he's doing and he gladly says "These women are suspicious, they look like possible shoplifters." and the cops let him continue.. What do you think the chances are for those women getting raped/robbed/murdered in the parking lot?

Zero. They called the cops. Police would detain the fellow long enough for the women to leave and get home and unpack their bags, before he is released.

Let's add to the example by saying that the fellow following was the son of a storeowner in the mall, and he saw one of the ladies stick a piece of clothing into a purse. Now, it could be she just took that off, or it might be that she took that from his store. So, instead of calling security and possibly opening himself to a lawsuit, he follows the ladies to see if they steal anything else from his store, or other nearby stores. Now, the man is not stalking, because he has a reason to be following them.

Let's try out another example. The lady in question is moving to leave the mall and the man that is following her closes in a to within 50 feet, and he says "Excuse me miss??". So she reaches into her purse spins around and puts a 9mm slug between his eyes... Is she justified? Was she in fear of her life at that point?

There is very few known reasons to follow anyone in the state of Florida, the main ones are:

1) A sworn LEO instructs you to do so. (Yes, an LEO can use citizens as an extension of himself.)

2) You are trying to protect yourself/other from great bodily harm/death. (If he chases someone with a weapon, you can chase him down to save that person.)

I'm going to have to ask for some specific proof of those claims.

As for calling the cops supporting his story:

Calling the cops implies he felt that the person might have been dangerous. This can either make his case or break his case. It just boils down to whether he followed or was followed. In his interview he claims that he had turned and started walking away and then Martin jumped out of nowhere and started attacking him. In the official news story it says that he followed Martin, they fought and Martin was shot. If he was attacked as he says he had every right to fire his weapon, his call to the cops further exemplifies his belief that this person was dangerous. Now, here is the problem because Zimmerman did admit to some extent of following... If he followed Martin and that lead to a fight, he did not have a right to fire his weapon.

I think the 911 call proves that ZImmerman DID follow Martin, all the way over to Retreat View street. And Martin got away. Encounter OVER! We know this happened. He went all the way to Retreat View.

Then Z starts back for his car (or the mailboxes) to meet police. And then "behind" where M disappeared, they end up fighting and M gets shot. To me that means Z was leaving the area and M returned to start a 2nd encounter, one that got him shot. Z must have been on the sidewalk between Retreat View and Two Tree(?) street. There is a spot where Z dropped his keys. And... M must have come up from between the large condo buildings. Note where M dropped his phone. Then M and Z spoke to each other... "What are you doing here?" "What do you want?" and a fistfight broke out. M was the one that RETURNED to start the fight. M is at fault. Z has a real Self Defense claim.

Just all about what Zimmerman said, if he hasn't been lying there is no possible way he is guilty.. Now if he has been lying he will be found guilty.

I think it is Obvious that Z has been stupid several times in this, and probably lied about a bunch of it. But what matters is not what Z has said, but what is used in the trial. He could be telling people that a UFO, or bigfoot, leaped out and shot M and it would make no difference in the trial. Most judges, even the uber liberal ones, are too smart to allow stupid statements made to stupid news agencies as evidence in a murder trial.

Grab a mango, put it somewhere and try to draw and shoot it while you're thrashing your head about...

Now stop thrashing your head, walk up close draw and take your shot.

What situation gives you a better chance at hitting the heart with a single shot?

I'm not saying this is or isn't what happened, i'm just saying that the claim of it being ridiculous is asinine. The numbers support the reason to believe in these claims, although they do not prove them. It is after all just odds, and some people win the lottery.

We will see soon enough, in the case of Zimmerman the truth will set him free. If he has been saying the truth that is...

That does not prove anything. Making up a scenario is fine, but Witnesses have said that both men were fighting on the ground when the shot went off, and Z is the one who shows signs of being beaten up.

Suppose in your mango example, that if you DON"T grab and fire the mango that you are going to DIE. Now do you think you might manage to pull that off?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with the bolded. If you see someone that to you seems suspicious, always call the cops. If I saw a stranger walking in and out of my neighbors homes I would immediately call the police. Especially if there have been recent break ins. Better safe than sorry.

Well, if you look at the location he was walking in. There are no "homes" there, it looks like blocks of condos. What Zimmerman probably was reporting was Martin going up on peoples yards and looking around... maybe onto their patios, or looking into windows.

Here is what the buildings look like...

frank-taaffe-address-google-street-view.jpg

Edited by DieChecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if you look at the location he was walking in. There are no "homes" there, it looks like blocks of condos. What Zimmerman probably was reporting was Martin going up on peoples yards and looking around... maybe onto their patios, or looking into windows.

frank-taaffe-address-google-street-view.jpg

In the re-enactment, Zimmerman stated that he first saw Martin at the bend on Retreat View Circle (address 1460). He indicated that Martin was at the front area of that address and was crossing the yard.

Edited by regi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but that is not Court evidence, unless he choses to repeat that story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where does the law say that?

Zero. They called the cops. Police would detain the fellow long enough for the women to leave and get home and unpack their bags, before he is released.

Let's add to the example by saying that the fellow following was the son of a storeowner in the mall, and he saw one of the ladies stick a piece of clothing into a purse. Now, it could be she just took that off, or it might be that she took that from his store. So, instead of calling security and possibly opening himself to a lawsuit, he follows the ladies to see if they steal anything else from his store, or other nearby stores. Now, the man is not stalking, because he has a reason to be following them.

FFS dude you keep saying people have a right to follow each other when you know they don't. Stop the bullspit. Store owner or son of, or even Jesus, he can't follow people around other stores or buildings that is stalking. Even if they stole his merchandise. What he can do is call the cops and give them the evidence they need to lock them up once they catch them.

Cops called on stalking accusations usually do hold the aggressor until the victims are gone to avoid the situation escalating. However, in this example according to you(Where following people is legal), he would be allowed to walk free and clear and continue to follow(stalk) them.

http://browardsherif...awsFinalRpt.pdf

B. Stalking in the Criminal Law

The crime of stalking involves much more than predatory behavior, although that is typically one

element of criminal stalking. The motivations for the stalking, including obsessional causes, are not at all

relevant to defining the crime of stalking. Instead, most state penal codes define stalking as involving the

following three elements:

· A pattern of willful or intentional harassing or annoying/alarming conduct, such as

repeat messages, following, vandalism, and other unwanted behaviors

· Infliction of credible explicit or implicit threats against a victim's safety or that of her

family

· Actual and reasonable victim fear of the stalker resulting from that behavior.13

This lengthy definition may be simplified to the three key prosecutorial elements that present the

greatest difficulties of proof:

· The defendant's multiple acts were willful or intentional.

· Threats were expressed by those acts.

· Victim fear resulted.

So according to Broward Sheriff's Office, UNWANTED following is the same as illegal following.. which is all one and the same as Stalking.

Threat

A threat under most states' stalking laws17 may be either explicit or implicit.18 In either instance,

stalking threats do not require any immediacy; the execution of the threats can lie in the indefinite future.

Implicit threats differ from explicit threats in not conveying a threat by their very words. Instead, the

threat is inferred by the victim based on what the stalker says and does, taking into account any special knowledge that the victim has of the stalker, such as a prior history of violence. Threats must also meet a "reasonable person" standard to exclude oversensitive reactions from the law's reach.

Threat was not initially used, it became such when the victim of stalking ran and the stalker followed. His body language threatened great bodily harm or death was imminent.

Fear

Stalker threat and victim fear in response to that threat are easy to separate where the stalking

threat is explicit.19 But most stalking cases do not involve explicit threats. In cases where the threat is

implicit in the stalker's actions, threat and fear can be difficult to separate. Proof of one often also

means proving the other, per the reasonable person standard. In these cases, it is the context in which

the harassing or stalking behavior occurs that provides the link between that behavior and victim fear.

For example, sending flowers as a gift may be stalking behavior, depending on what actions have

preceded the gift. In some cases, the threat against the victim may be obvious even where only implicit

(as where the stalker places a nylon sex doll with a rope tied around its neck in the victim's bed). In

other cases, more background information is needed, e.g., where the stalker uses the phrase "love

forever" and in the same letter refers to his prowess as a rifle sharpshooter. The requirement in most

jurisdictions for actual fear means that unless the victim is aware of being followed, simple predatory

behavior does not constitute the crime of stalking

Martin felt threatened, this is why he ran, this is also why he was followed implying even greater threat.

Related Criminal Laws. Stalking is one of several related crimes that infringe upon a victim's

privacy and safety. Related crimes include harassment, terroristic threats, and invasion of privacy. The

most serious of those offenses is the terroristic threat against the victim's person; terroristic threat laws

are found in 35 states and the District of Columbia.88 Stalking differs from a terroristic threat in that in

stalking, both the threat and the victim fear result from a series of acts, and the threat is for a future act.

In the criminal law context, however, the term "stalking" refers to

· Willful behavior that

· Threatens the safety of a victim and

· Results in victim fear.

Not every state's laws fit this tri-part definition. Further, states vary in their specification of what

each crime element requires. Nonetheless, there is general agreement nationally that this definition of

stalking is appropriate and useful as a research construct.23

When Martin ran away, it was a clear sign of fear and an express sign of not wanting further contact. When Zimmerman followed he did so in a manner of which was threatening to Martin.

We done arguing the stalking?

Zimmerman did stalk Martin, the question is did Martin attack Zimmerman while he was stalking him... or did Martin attack a man that was minding his business finding his keys to his car... (God I don't know how many times I have to say this...)

Edited by xFelix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FFS dude you keep saying people have a right to follow each other when you know they don't. Stop the bullspit. Store owner or son of, or even Jesus, he can't follow people around other stores or buildings that is stalking. Even if they stole his merchandise. What he can do is call the cops and give them the evidence they need to lock them up once they catch them.

OHHHH..... You're going to FFS me now? (I had to actually look that up.)

Cops called on stalking accusations usually do hold the aggressor until the victims are gone to avoid the situation escalating. However, in this example according to you(Where following people is legal), he would be allowed to walk free and clear and continue to follow(stalk) them.

http://browardsherif...awsFinalRpt.pdf

That is a good link, but states that the Stalking is based on State law. And I already quoted state law to you. There is Stalking (a misdemenor) and Aggrevated Stalking (Stalking with implication of violence). I already agreed that aggrevated stalking could invoke the SYG law on TMs side. But, you have failed to show aggrevated stalking. There is no evidence of fear or threats. Was there a witness? Were you there???

B. Stalking in the Criminal Law

The crime of stalking involves much more than predatory behavior, although that is typically one

element of criminal stalking. The motivations for the stalking, including obsessional causes, are not at all

relevant to defining the crime of stalking. Instead, most state penal codes define stalking as involving the

following three elements:

· A pattern of willful or intentional harassing or annoying/alarming conduct, such as

repeat messages, following, vandalism, and other unwanted behaviors

· Infliction of credible explicit or implicit threats against a victim's safety or that of her

family

· Actual and reasonable victim fear of the stalker resulting from that behavior.13

This lengthy definition may be simplified to the three key prosecutorial elements that present the

greatest difficulties of proof:

· The defendant's multiple acts were willful or intentional.

· Threats were expressed by those acts.

· Victim fear resulted.

So according to Broward Sheriff's Office, UNWANTED following is the same as illegal following.. which is all one and the same as Stalking.

Except you've failed to show... a pattern... a threat... fear on TMs part...

The only thing that CAN be show is that Z "willfully" followed TM. That is a SAD stalking case. Probably be thrown out, or probably never get arrested.

Threat was not initially used, it became such when the victim of stalking ran and the stalker followed. His body language threatened great bodily harm or death was imminent.

That is a presumption. You weren't there and nether was any other witness, so the body language is unknown.

Martin felt threatened, this is why he ran, this is also why he was followed implying even greater threat.

Another presumption. Did you interview TM? Did he tell his GF he was scared? Even if he had the GF is a known liar....

So, if he was so scared... for his life... why did he come back?

When Martin ran away, it was a clear sign of fear and an express sign of not wanting further contact. When Zimmerman followed he did so in a manner of which was threatening to Martin.

We done arguing the stalking?

If he was in fear of his life, why did he come back? He could have hidden till the police arrived, between buildings. He clearly, from the map and the collected evidence, returned to talk, or fight, with Z.

Nope, he might have been in fear when he ran, but when he came back he was angry and aggressive.

Zimmerman did stalk Martin, the question is did Martin attack Zimmerman while he was stalking him... or did Martin attack a man that was minding his business finding his keys to his car... (God I don't know how many times I have to say this...)

Yes, he did till the point TM got away and Z went back toward his car. After that TM came back and it turned into an Assault by TM against Z, which resulted in TM dying because he did not know Z had a gun.

Case solved..... :clap: SELF DEFENSE....

Yet, it happens every day. People get charged with crimes by the Cops when they are arrested, and then the charges are brought to a Judge for the defendant to Plea. Charges get Dropped all the time. They can be dropped anytime before your trial, or dismissed by the trial judge, or even during the trial by the DA office.

All you need is a persuasive cop to want you arrested and charged and there is nothing you can do about it. Except sue afterwards maybe...

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but that is not Court evidence, unless he choses to repeat that story.

I don't know what you mean by "court evidence", and surely, you're joking with "if he chooses to repeat that story", but regardless, no other story is logical.

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.)

Edited by regi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never heard of anyone charged with stalking when they were trying to scare off a thief.

George thought Trayvon was a potential theif because he was walking between houses and looking in windows (casing).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except you've failed to show... a pattern... a threat... fear on TMs part...

are you freaking serious?

Running from a stalker clearly demonstrates fear.(Zimmerman said that Martin ran, there is your witness.)

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.)

He initially harassed Martin, Martin ran, he followed(harassed) Martin. That is a pattern.(As per Zimmerman's own statements on the 911 call.)

You're going to keep arguing the stalking because we both know that if he did stalk Martin and that lead to the shooting he will be found guilty..

I guess you like vigilante superheroes, but you cannot follow people (even at a safe distance) because you feel like it. You do not have the right to invade another persons's privacy, or threaten their personal safety because you want to force them to be the focus of your observation. This is Stalking and relative crimes of stalking.

784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.

(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

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.

Edited by xFelix
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.