The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

OmSigDAVID wrote:

BillRM wrote:

Zimmerman stalked Martin.

What an emotional loaded word to used for the act of legally following Trayvon
in order to get the police to check him out!!!!!!!!!!

Yes he killed Trayvon and a jury found he did so in legal self defense.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Zimmmerman STALKED Martin...whether the word is emotionally loaded or not.

Frank, u write that as if there were anything rong
with stalking someone. If we ever meet, u will be welcome to STALK me.
I will not mind, and I faithfully promise NOT to beat your head on the street.
I remember a childrens' game called: "Follow the Leader."
When the stalking is complete, we can go somewhere good for dinner.
I wish that u 'd stop implying that there is anything rong
with following anyone, unless u show how it is un-lawful or immoral, or fattening.

If u DO allege that it is un-lawful,
then will u please cite to the applicable statute
and quote its operative language???

David

Frank Apisa wrote:

I did not say it was unlawful, did I, David?

Yes, u did not (so far as I know),
but u appeared to be so intensely offended by it
that I was un-sure on that point; (better just to ask).

Frank Apisa wrote:

And thank you for agreeing that it was stalking.

OK; the truth is that I dont know the difference
between stalking and following; however, I did not mean that
in the sense of animalistic depredations.
I believe that Zimmy was trying to identify martin's location for the police.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Under any circumstances...none of us know for sure who attacked whom first. Except for what Zimmerman says, we have no hard facts about what occurred when the two first said words to each other...and there is no reason to put great credence in what Zimmerman says.

I suspect that u already know
that in America, the defendant always gets the benefit of the doubt,
which is to say that the burden of proof is on the affirmative side.
David

the defendant always gets the benefit of the doubt,
which is to say that the burden of proof is on the affirmative side.

Let's grant that for the trial that is so.

But the thing I was talking with Bill about was who attacked whom first.

We do not know. The jury does not know.

The jury is instructed the way you say.

We have no such instructions, because we are not a jury judging Zimmerman.

Bill repeatedly has said that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

WE DO NOT KNOW THAT!

That was what I said.

And they are trying to distract from the fact that Zimmerman has continued to repeat the same pattern of provoking and menacing others--several others-- with gun threats since he was acquitted.

Zimmerman provoked Trayvon in many ways; that Trayvon didn't have any physical injury doesn't matter.

Quote:

But the thing I was talking with Bill about was who attacked whom first.

We do not know. The jury does not know.

I would find it amazing that if Zimmerman was the attacker that his attack was so damn weak that it did not leave a mark of any kind on Trayvon body no matter how minor.

Sorry Frank the known evidence does not support Zimmerman being the attacker.

into account the cultural DNA bias inherent in our society towards minorities,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

BillRM wrote:

Zimmerman stalked Martin.

What an emotional loaded word to used for the act of legally following Trayvon
in order to get the police to check him out!!!!!!!!!!

Yes he killed Trayvon and a jury found he did so in legal self defense.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Zimmmerman STALKED Martin...whether the word is emotionally loaded or not.

Frank, u write that as if there were anything rong
with stalking someone. If we ever meet, u will be welcome to STALK me.
I will not mind, and I faithfully promise NOT to beat your head on the street.
I remember a childrens' game called: "Follow the Leader."
When the stalking is complete, we can go somewhere good for dinner.
I wish that u 'd stop implying that there is anything rong
with following anyone, unless u show how it is un-lawful or immoral, or fattening.

If u DO allege that it is un-lawful,
then will u please cite to the applicable statute
and quote its operative language???

David

Frank Apisa wrote:

I did not say it was unlawful, did I, David?

Yes, u did not (so far as I know),
but u appeared to be so intensely offended by it
that I was un-sure on that point; (better just to ask).

Frank Apisa wrote:

And thank you for agreeing that it was stalking.

OK; the truth is that I dont know the difference
between stalking and following; however, I did not mean that
in the sense of animalistic depredations.
I believe that Zimmy was trying to identify martin's location for the police.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Under any circumstances...none of us know for sure who attacked whom first. Except for what Zimmerman says, we have no hard facts about what occurred when the two first said words to each other...and there is no reason to put great credence in what Zimmerman says.

I suspect that u already know
that in America, the defendant always gets the benefit of the doubt,
which is to say that the burden of proof is on the affirmative side.
David

Just one thing here I want to comment on here, David

Quote:

the defendant always gets the benefit of the doubt,
which is to say that the burden of proof is on the affirmative side.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Let's grant that for the trial that is so.

But the thing I was talking with Bill about was who attacked whom first.

We do not know. The jury does not know.

The jury is instructed the way you say.

We have no such instructions, because we are not a jury judging Zimmerman.

Bill repeatedly has said that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

WE DO NOT KNOW THAT!

That was what I said.

R u suggesting that Zimmy was executing a citizen's arrest ??

or what ?

Many people have been attacked without suffering any marks of any kind. It happens. Inept people do attack...and some people being attack are street smart and can easily thwart an attack.

hole point; it's about Trayvon

OmSigDAVID wrote:

BillRM wrote:

Zimmerman stalked Martin.

What an emotional loaded word to used for the act of legally following Trayvon
in order to get the police to check him out!!!!!!!!!!

Yes he killed Trayvon and a jury found he did so in legal self defense.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Zimmmerman STALKED Martin...whether the word is emotionally loaded or not.

Frank, u write that as if there were anything rong
with stalking someone. If we ever meet, u will be welcome to STALK me.
I will not mind, and I faithfully promise NOT to beat your head on the street.
I remember a childrens' game called: "Follow the Leader."
When the stalking is complete, we can go somewhere good for dinner.
I wish that u 'd stop implying that there is anything rong
with following anyone, unless u show how it is un-lawful or immoral, or fattening.

If u DO allege that it is un-lawful,
then will u please cite to the applicable statute
and quote its operative language???

David

Frank Apisa wrote:

I did not say it was unlawful, did I, David?

Yes, u did not (so far as I know),
but u appeared to be so intensely offended by it
that I was un-sure on that point; (better just to ask).

Frank Apisa wrote:

And thank you for agreeing that it was stalking.

OK; the truth is that I dont know the difference
between stalking and following; however, I did not mean that
in the sense of animalistic depredations.
I believe that Zimmy was trying to identify martin's location for the police.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Under any circumstances...none of us know for sure who attacked whom first. Except for what Zimmerman says, we have no hard facts about what occurred when the two first said words to each other...and there is no reason to put great credence in what Zimmerman says.

I suspect that u already know
that in America, the defendant always gets the benefit of the doubt,
which is to say that the burden of proof is on the affirmative side.
David

the defendant always gets the benefit of the doubt,
which is to say that the burden of proof is on the affirmative side.

Let's grant that for the trial that is so.

But the thing I was talking with Bill about was who attacked whom first.

We do not know. The jury does not know.

The jury is instructed the way you say.

We have no such instructions, because we are not a jury judging Zimmerman.

Bill repeatedly has said that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

WE DO NOT KNOW THAT!

That was what I said.

R u suggesting that Zimmy was executing a citizen's arrest ??

No, I am not. I am suggesting quite strongly I thought,
that we do not know who instigated the physical confrontation
that began with Zimmerman stalking Martin.

n YOUR scenario,
if Zimmy were NOT endeavoring to arrest martin
(as no one has ever alleged that he did), what possible motivation
did Zimmy have for laying hands on martin?? Do u allege that he
wanted to beat up ALL blacks and that he just went after the nearest one ????

It's more than just egg on their faces, it's feces. They just can't smell their own bull shyt.

even if the truth were so obvious a blind man could see it.

Bill, You're missing the whole point; it's about Trayvon.
That you think and believe it's about Zimmerman is based on your total ignorance of the issues.

Excellent observation on those who continue to support Zimmerman regardless of all the media reports about how he is a "ticking time bomb," and his aggressive behavior after his acquittal.

It's more than just egg on their faces, it's feces. They just can't smell their own bull shyt.

I believe emotions are the bane of good thinking. I just don't understand why they keep coming back for more!~

I believe emotions are the bane of good thinking. I just don't understand why they keep coming back for more!~