soundforbjt
Lifer
- Feb 15, 2002
- 17,788
- 6,040
- 136
I understand that. But understand that behavior could cause suspicion, especially given all the crime.
Only to a Barney Fife wanna be.
I understand that. But understand that behavior could cause suspicion, especially given all the crime.
How about the one witness that actually saw it? He states zimmerman on his back, being beaten by martin, zimmerman crying for help.
That entire story could still fit a stalking charge (possibly aggravated), even if 100% true.
Malicious would be the hardest point to establish IMHO, but other than that what doesn't fit? I do agree that aggravated stalking would be a moonshot given what little I have read.Doesn't look like it. I just read the FL statute regarding stalking, and none of this even comes close to a stalking charge.
One news article (myfoxorlanod.com) mentions this without giving any indication as to the source of the quote. Did this witness independently contact myfoxorlando? did the police leak this one tidbit of information but then completely fail to ever bring it up again?
I will take that one non-cited reference and then line it up against the mountain of circumstantial evidence and still have no logical reason to believe Zimmerman had reasonable justification to use lethal force.
I will take that one non-cited reference and then line it up against the mountain of circumstantial evidence and still have no logical reason to believe Zimmerman had reasonable justification to use lethal force.
Malicious would be the hardest point to establish IMHO, but other than that what doesn't fit? I do agree that aggravated stalking would be a moonshot given what little I have read.
Let's try situation #2. I go to a bar. This is a bar where a lot of people have been pushed around. A guy - more than 100lbs larger than me, is giving me weird looks. Everywhere I go, he goes. He even follows me into the bathroom. Spooked out, I leave - and sure enough, he's following me again. I run a few blocks, circle back, thinking I lost him, but then, he's right in front of me as I turn a corner. I'm like "WTF is your problem", and give him a shove - he shoves me back, and we end up wrestling a bit. I get on top of him (how exactly does someone with a 100lb weight advantage stay pinned down, btw?) - it's ok now if he shoots me?
so spidey - a 250lb man follows a 140lb teenager in his car...for some period of time - said teen flees...man follows, loses sight of him - at some point they encounter each other - said teen apparently gets the best of the situation (not saying this happened btw, just in theory here)....to you it's ok that the man shoots the teen?
Let's try situation #2. I go to a bar. This is a bar where a lot of people have been pushed around. A guy - more than 100lbs larger than me, is giving me weird looks. Everywhere I go, he goes. He even follows me into the bathroom. Spooked out, I leave - and sure enough, he's following me again. I run a few blocks, circle back, thinking I lost him, but then, he's right in front of me as I turn a corner. I'm like "WTF is your problem", and give him a shove - he shoves me back, and we end up wrestling a bit. I get on top of him (how exactly does someone with a 100lb weight advantage stay pinned down, btw?) - it's ok now if he shoots me?
Yes on both counts.
If zimmerman was on his back, being beaten and crying for help would that be self defense to you? Because legally it opens up a whole lot of options for use of force.
That's debatable, to the extent that said "investigating" creates intimidation, etc. Observing the neighborhood and calling for police serves a legitimate purpose. Pursuing an individual because they "look suspicious" I would argue serves no legitimate purpose. The fact that an individual believes their actions serve a legitimate purpose does not necessarily make it true.No, the statute makes it clear that it only applies to someone who's activities serve no legitimate purpose, and that the actions of the person have to be qualified as malicious. Someone in a neighborhood watch trying to investigate someone suspicious (and keeping an eye on them) is a legitimate purpose,
I agree no stalking charges are likely, primarily because they probably would have been filed fairly quickly if at all. IMHO the lack of said charges has very little to do with the facts of the case.and you'd have a hard time arguing that the action was malicious with Zimmerman calling 911 before anything actually happened. That's why no stalking charges have been filed (and I don't think any will be).
Except a witness said it was Zimmerman standing over Martin. Unless Martin somehow took off his hoodie before being shot, and then put it back on afterwards. Which would be hard as he was busy being shot by a crazed animal.
Except a witness said it was Zimmerman standing over Martin. Unless Martin somehow took off his hoodie before being shot, and then put it back on afterwards. Which would be hard as he was busy being shot by a crazed animal.
I think you may well be right, under Florida law. This is the problem with this absurd law. You, on the other hand, seem to be the only person who thinks this is a good thing.
florida licensing said:Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?
A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:
Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.
Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.
Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.
I wonder why this is not being shown or mentioned?
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/new...n-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation
I think you may well be right, under Florida law. This is the problem with this absurd law. You, on the other hand, seem to be the only person who thinks this is a good thing.
"The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.
Read more: http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/new...led-in-neighborhood-altercation#ixzz1paMNXSry
THIS IS IMPORTANT.
A witness said that a man in a white or gray tshirt was on top. Well, Zimmerman was wearing a red sweater according to a witness. So Martin was in-fact on top.
It is important. What's also important is how the altercation started. And the fact that Mr. Zimmerman was told we don't need you to follow Trayvon Martin. It's still a tragedy that didn't need to happen and quite frankly my point still stands. Florida's law and other's like it throughout the the states need to be changed.
It also tells other people that you had better damn well better be armed. Perhaps even if you're a minor your better off carrying anyway.
If attacking someone with a garden hose didn't warrant lethal force, a wrestling/fist fight sure as f**k doesn't.
I think you're wrong on that. The point isn't the weapon (fists versus hose), it's the total scenario of what is going on at the time. Being pinned down with no way to escape puts you in position to fear for your life.
um, no.
The fact remains that we don't have any witnesses who saw who threw the first punch, but we do have a witness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, and Zimmerman on the losing end.
