The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

@OmSigDAVID,

I block Firefly but it is interesting that from your pasted David that Firefly bring up the deaths threats that it would seems Holder at least think of as protected speech as he have done zero about them even if no court as far as I know have ever declared death threats are cover by free speech.

Nice to have laws on the books that you can used to punished people you disagree with while looking the other way when large numbers of your supporters are breaking the law to the point of issuing death threats to the children of jury members.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Stalking...whether it goes on for a long time or just happens one time...is still stalking. Zimmerman was stalking Martin.

BillRM wrote:

Bullshit Zimmerman was not following him to do harm him but to guide law enforcement to him and if he had not turn and attacked Zimmerman he would be alive today assuming he did not end up dead for other criminal conduct since.

Absolutely right.
Its hard to understand how anyone can deny that.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Yes, AGREED.
U make a decent lawyer, Bill!

Thanks you for the compliment David. Embarrassed

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

hawkeye10 wrote:

you know, stalking used to be defined as continually following someone, or staking out their house. this idea that you could follow soneone one time for an arguably valid reason and be quilty of stalking brings to mind how rape has been massively redefined.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Perhaps it bring that to your mind, Hawk...but that has to do with problems you may have.

Stalking...whether it goes on for a long time or just happens one time...is still stalking. Zimmerman was stalking Martin.

Stalking is a perfectly fine thing to do, Frank; nothing rong with it, not morally, not legally.
IF u deny that, then please be specific in explaining WHAT
is rong with stalking (legally or morally) and how it is rong.
It is rong to simply ASSUME that, without offering any evidence.

David

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

I block Firefly but it is interesting that from your pasted David that Firefly bring up the deaths threats that it would seems Holder at least think of as protected speech as he have done zero about them even if no court as far as I know have ever declared death threats are cover by free speech.

Nice to have laws on the books that you can used to punished people you disagree with while looking the other way when large numbers of your supporters are breaking the law to the point of issuing death threats to the children of jury members.

Yes; I can think of at least 1 fellow who believed that the jury
wud convict Zimmy out of personal fear of the blacks' retribution for an acquital.

I was expecting what happened in the verdict (tho not sure).

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Yes; I can think of at least 1 fellow who believed that the jury
wud convict Zimmy out of personal fear of the blacks' retribution for an acquital.

Do not forget that the jurors was under sequestered so they was not aware of all the "outstanding citizens" that was freely issuing deaths threats if they did not convict Zimmerman.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

you know, stalking used to be defined as continually following someone, or staking out their house. this idea that you could follow soneone one time for an arguably valid reason and be quilty of stalking...

You don't have to use the legal definition to accurately define what Zimmerman did that night as "stalking". Just try the dictionary definition..

Quote:

intransitive verb

1: to pursue quarry or prey stealthily

transitive verb

1: to pursue by stalking

to pursue quarry or prey stealthily

Zimmerman was stalking his "suspect"--that's how he referred to Martin in his written statement to the police--as "the suspect". Zimmerman was pursuing his prey, and Martin was his prey. Zimmerman wasn't doing this for the police, they didn't want or need him to stalk Martin. Zimmerman wasn't doing this in accord with neighborhood watch rules, it's contrary to those rules. Zimmerman was doing this because of his own anger and obsession with the thought that "these f---ing punks always get away". Zimmerman was stalking Martin entirely for his own reasons, because he didn't want this one to get away. Martin was his prey--and he stalked his prey in the dark, like a hunter stalks an animal.

In reality, Martin wasn't a "suspect"--he had engaged in no criminal activity, and done nothing remotely criminal. Since when is looking around at buildings, while just walking around talking on a cell phone, something that should make anyone regarded as a criminal "suspect"? But, by calling Martin his "suspect" Zimmerman made it abundantly clear he was playing wannabe cap, because he chose to use cop language. People who play cop, in that way, are vigilantes. So, I'm not at all sure that Zimmerman had any valid reason for stalking Martin--he had a rationalization for why he did what he did, but that's not the same as "a valid reason".

So, Frank, and others, have been quite correct in describing Zimmerman's actions as "stalking". That's just what he was doing. And he did cause Martin emotional distress, and apprehension, by such actions, we know that from the conversation Rachel Jeantel reported. And, we also know he perceived Zimmerman as being white. A black teen, particularly in the South, has every reason to feel apprehensive when a white guy starts stalking him in the dark, and Zimmerman never identified himself to Martin, to try to reduce such apprehensions about why he was being "stalked".

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

you know, stalking used to be defined as continually following someone, or staking out their house. this idea that you could follow soneone one time for an arguably valid reason and be quilty of stalking brings to mind how rape has been massively redefined.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Perhaps it bring that to your mind, Hawk...but that has to do with problems you may have.

Stalking...whether it goes on for a long time or just happens one time...is still stalking. Zimmerman was stalking Martin.

Stalking is a perfectly fine thing to do, Frank; nothing rong with it, not morally, not legally.
IF u deny that, then please be specific in explaining WHAT
is rong with stalking (legally or morally) and how it is rong.
It is rong to simply ASSUME that, without offering any evidence.

David

Seems to me we had this discussion just a day or so ago, David. And as I remember it, you even acknowledged what I had to say about it.

We are not talking about whether or not there is something wrong with stalking. We are talking about whether or not Zimmerman was stalking Martin.

Bill is arguing he was not stalking him.

You are arguing that there is nothing wrong with stalking.

I am not a lawyer...and I do not know for sure what the laws are with regard to stalking...so I am not taking a position on the rightness or wrongness of the stalking.

I am merely pointing out that Zimmerman WAS stalking Martin.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Those facts only get in the way; the likes of hawk's, et al, ideas about these events are so damaged, they just back-peddle. They just don't realize how foolish they look based on FACTUAL DATA that's available from all the media and court reports.

They even try to redefine common words. TNCFS

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

they look based on FACTUAL DATA

Like the false information that Zimmerman was order to remain in his truck or even told not to follow? The comment you do not need to do that is hardly an order nor would a 911 dispatcher have any power to give any orders.

The like the 911 tape being edited to cut out the dispatcher asking Zimmerman Trayvon color ?

Like the news media claiming that the word coon could be hear on the tape when no such work could be found.

What Factual data that Zimmerman was white when he was of mixed race including black blood?

Yes you seems to have a lot of factual data NOT

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Stalking imply following with some intend to do harm to the person he was following and that Zimmerman was not doing.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

You,

Quote:

Stalking imply following with some intend to do harm to the person he was following and that Zimmerman was not doing.

You're an idiot! He killed Trayvon by his stalking.

Quote:

The Resentful:

* The goal of this stalker is to frighten and distress the victim.

* These stalkers may also experience feelings of injustice and desire revenge.

3 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

You're an idiot! He killed Trayvon by his stalking.

LOL that was the direct result of Trayvon attacking him not him following the young hoodlum.

He had zero intend to do Trayvon harm unless you think that having the police check him out would be considering doing him harm.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
So am I correct though...that you are against laws that prohibit stalking?

No under very extreme cases the stalking laws can have a useful function but such laws are all to easy to misused and can results in more injustice then they was suppose to stop. They need to be written and apply with great care.

I gotta be honest with ya, Bill...it sounds an awful like you are against stalking laws to me.

Perhaps you would be happy with stalking laws that exempt anyone who owns a gun.

Quote:
Now the very idea that a citizen following someone in order to guide the police to the person being follow is a fine example of the complete and almost insane used of the concept of such laws.

There is a lot that seems "almost insane" about this situation, Bill...but the idea of laws against stalking is not one of them.

Quote:
In other word your wish to cover the following of a maybe criminal are a fine example of the danger such laws can have on innocent actions and in fact very useful actions.

I'd love to comment on this, but I cannot decipher it. Could you give it one more attempt please.

The only stalking laws that I have ever heard of
do NOT apply and have NO effect UNLESS movant gets a JUDICIAL INJUNCTION
against the stalker telling him to cease & desist from further stalking.

IF u know of other requirements of law concerning stalking,
then I entreat u to let us know what thay r.
Maybe some jurisdictions have invented other legal concepts; I dunno. PLease tell us.
We look forward to your advice, Frank.

David

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

The Resentful:

* The goal of this stalker is to frighten and distress the victim.

* These stalkers may also experience feelings of injustice and desire revenge

An how fool does trying to guide the police to Trayvon to have him check out any of the above?

I myself as I had posted more then once here had been not follow but approach by concern citizens and never feel feelings of injustice or desire for revenge over it.

People have a right to look after their neighbors and neighborhoods and that apply to someone walking slowly in the rain checking out the homes or someone going door to door as part of the census.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

The Resentful:

* The goal of this stalker is to frighten and distress the victim.

* These stalkers may also experience feelings of injustice and desire revenge

An how fool does trying to guide the police to Trayvon to have him check out any of the above?

I myself as I had posted more then once here had been not follow but approach by concern citizens and never feel feelings of injustice or desire for revenge over it.

People have a right to look after their neighbors and neighborhoods and that apply to someone walking slowly in the rain checking out the homes or someone going door to door as part of the census.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

I gotta be honest with ya, Bill...it sounds an awful like you are against stalking laws to me.

Tightly written and very limits laws I could find myself supporting but I do think that if they are not written well they are a danger to everyone freedoms in everyday interactions.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

If you're so concerned about death threats, why aren't you concerned about the death threats Zimmerman has been making toward others?

Hanging a bullethole-ridden target on the wall, for his wife to find after coming home from interviews in N.Y., where she talked about their relationship, is a not very subtle death threat, particularly when it comes from a man whose only claim to notoriety is the fact he shot and killed someone.

Similarly, in the domestic confrontation he provoked and instigated in September, by angrily and impulsively and unexpectedly showing up at his former home while his estranged wife was trying to remove her belongings, when he made gestures as though he might pull out a gun, that was a death threat. And his own lawyer verified that he was armed with a concealed gun at the time.

And, now he's been arrested again and one of the charges against him is that he pointed a shotgun at his girlfriend to try to stop her from calling the police. Pointing a shotgun at someone is definitely a death threat.

So, stop being so concerned about all the anonymous vague death threats people might be voicing regarding Zimmerman on the social media. At worst that's harassment, and nothing more, and the likelihood is these are people just voicing anger at him, with absolutely no intention of actually harming him, and they're not posting these comments consistently enough that they would even constitute harassment by a single individual.

And start being more concerned with the very real death threats Zimmerman has been making directly toward people in his life when he's in a rage.

There's a reason the Lake Mary Chief of Police has called Zimmerman "a ticking time bomb" and "another Aurora or Sandy Hook waiting to happen"---he takes it very seriously that Zimmerman is making those death threats.

Don't you care about the people Zimmerman is threatening?

0 Replies

Florida current stalking law and none of it would apply to following someone to .guide the police to that person. Note the word repeat for one thing along with the word malicious and with the intend to place that person in fear of his well being and so on.

Quote:

http://statelaws.findlaw.com/florida-law/florida-stalking-laws.html

Code Section 784.048
Stalking Defined as Willful, malicious, and repeated following or harassing. (704.048(2)); Aggravated stalking: willful, malicious and repeated following or harassing another with credible threats with the intent to place person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury; or willfully, maliciously, repeatedly follows or harasses minor under 16; or after injunction for protection or any court-imposed prohibition of conduct, knowingly, willfully, maliciously and repeatedly follows or harasses another person.
Punishment/Classification Sentencing/fines: apply 775.082, 083,084 Stalking misdemeanor is 1st degree Aggravated stalking is felony of the 3rd degree 784.048(3), (4) and (5)
Penalty for Repeat Offense In violation of injunction or domestic violence protective order: felony in 3rd degree
Arrest or Restraining Order Specifically Authorized by Statute? Arrest without warrant if probable cause to believe statute is violated. (784.048(6))
Constitutionally Protected Activities Exempted? Yes. (784.048(1)(b)); includes picketing and organized protests
Note: State laws are constantly changing -- contact

1 Reply

Quote:

http://www.decodedscience.com/did-george-zimmerman-stalk-trayvon-martin-unlawful-pursuit-law-in-florida/33899

Stalking Under Florida Law
Section 784.048 (2) of the Florida Statutes states when “a person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person” the person is guilty of the offence of stalking. Stalking is a first-degree misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for up to one year and a fine not exceeding $1,000.
In order to be convicted of stalking, it must be proved the defendant followed the victim “repeatedly.” Whether or not Zimmerman stopped following Martin after the dispatcher told him it was not necessary or continued to follow him, the following was all one act. He did not “repeatedly” follow Martin.
Another aspect of the offense is the following must be done “maliciously”. Malice is similar to the “ill will and spite” that is necessary in order to get a conviction for second-degree murder.
Since the jury was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman had “ill will and spite” at the time he shot and killed Martin, there is no evidence he had any malicious intent at the time he followed him.
As well, it would be extremely hard to argue Zimmerman was maliciously following Martin while, or even after he was on the phone to 911, had identified himself, and gave his location to the dispatcher so officers could be sent.
Stalking can also consist of “harassment” rather than “following”
‘Harassment’ is defined as a “course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.”
Again, even if Martin did experience emotional distress, prosecutors would have to prove this one brief encounter was “a course of conduct” and that Zimmerman had no legitimate purpose in ‘harassing’ him. It would be difficult to argue that following Martin so the police would know where he was after they arrived constituted stalking, when it was done on only one occasion, and without malice.
Florida also has an offense of aggravating stalking applicable when a “credible threat” is made during the course of stalking.
Aggravated stalking is a felony but there is no evidence this crime is applicable.

0 Replies

The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know