Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman Revisited

sear · May 21, 2017

PS

"Zimmerman was acquitted. Case closed." JH #372

The "case" may be closed.
The controversy is clearly not; as this thread, which I did not open here, has now spiraled out to 38 pages, hundreds of posts.

Double-jeopardy wouldn't seem to have too much to do with that.

Excon · May 21, 2017

jaeger19 said:
WOW.. that is so wrong.. they have to provide PROOF.. not just "provide a reason".. you need to go back and read your own link. WOW.. have you got that wrong.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG... your posted information even TELLS you that you are wrong.

Wrong as usual.
As already pointed out you do not know what you are talking about.
I will point out why, but as we already know you will not learn.

The terminology used was "sufficient proof".
That is an evidentiary statement, it indicates that a showing of evidence is required to be presented to the jury for the purpose of using an "affirmative defense".
It is not a requirement to prove that it happened to be able to use an affirmative defense.
Your idea that it requires actual proof is stupid. Thinking of it that way is counter to what was explained in the presentation.
If the requirement was to provide actual proof and not just evidence (as you have been continually told) there would be no need for a trial at that point because it would have already been proven.
You simply do not understand what you are talking about.

Again.
"Sufficient proof" as used, means a showing of evidence to establish why.
As in; Why did you use lethal force? You do not have to "prove" your actions were correct to generate the jury instruction.

Saying a I shot him in self defense is not an adequate showing/"sufficient proof".

Saying I shot him because he attacked me is not an adequate showing/"sufficient proof".

Articulating the reason is an adequate showing/"sufficient proof".

He attacked me from behind, knocked me to the ground, mounted me would not let me escape, repeatably slammed my head into the ground and then went for my gun saying he was going to kill me.

That is a sufficient showing/articulation/reason/"sufficient proof" to generate the jury instruction.
That is all that is required and what is meant by the terminology of "sufficient proof". He doesn't have to prove it happened to use the defense.

And again, since you are not paying attention, in this case that "sufficient proof" was provided to the jury by the prosecutor.
Had you read and understood the information provided you would know that. But clearly you don't.

jaeger19 said:
Of course it is.. to claim that following a person in a car, then following them on foot down a darkened street.. and referring to the person as an "a hole" that was "getting away"... certainly is evidence that the person was the aggressor.

to deny that is to be deliberately dishonest. but that's okay... dude.. you so got YOUR OWN REFERENCE.. wrong. So I don't expect a lot.

You are as wrong as your reply is irrational.
You misstate the facts and try to spin them to fit your imagined negative narrative. It is nothing more than irrational made up bs.
Following in a car? Not really. He drove ahead of him each time to observe him.
He then got out of it to follow in the direction Trayvon went to continue observing, but stopped by suggestion.
And his speaking of resignation to the situation establishes no such thing.
Not even the Prosecution was dumb enough to argue the nonsense you are.

Excon · May 21, 2017

jaeger19 said:
try to rebut it with the forensics expert. Because you can't.. because his testimony doesn't... but you give it a try. it will be fun.

It was already fun destroying your arguments before. Nothing will change.

We have already been over this in Dec. 2015 and you were as destroyed then as the ME was when she was cross examined and rebutted by the the expert Forensics Pathologist.
She destroyed her credibility on cross and the Expert Forensics Pathologist totally destroyed her in rebuttal.

This is what you provided then of what was reported she said on direct.

The wounds displayed on Zimmerman’s head and face were “consistent with one strike, two injuries at one time,” she testified. “The injuries were not life-threatening,” she said, adding they were “very insignificant.”

But on cross examination she destroyed herself by the way she answered and came off as biased, combative and wholly inept.

Rao refused to commit to a specific number of the maximum number of blows that would be consistent with the injuries on Zimmerman, but agreed with scenarios that could be more than half a dozen.

Medical examiner calls Zimmerman's injuries 'very insignificant'

And that admittance had to be dragged out of her on cross, making her look biased and incompetent, and she was not rehabilitated by the prosecution.

She was further destroyed when expert Forensics Pathologist, Dr. Vincent Di Maio, who has far more experience than the ME made it clear that a person getting their head slammed would reasonably be in fear for their life.

The Prosecution did not refute that, nor could they.

You have no valid argument, never have, and have been completely destroyed by all who have chosen to engage you in relation to Zimmerman.

jaeger19 said:
Well except for the fact that there is no evidence that his head "was repeatedly slammed into the ground".. in fact. .the evidence suggests that he was not being hit with any real force.

D'oh!

Except for Zimmerman's diagnosis.
Except for the EMT's testimony.
Except for testimony by the ME.
Except for the expert Forensics Pathologist Dr. DeMino.

Yeah, in your world that means there was no evidence. That's not reality.
Your arguments are stupid.

jaeger19 said:
... in fact her testimony was certainly truthful. And is medically correct.

Clearly it was not. She was shown to not be truthful by the rebuttal witness.
She destroyed her own credibility by the way she testified on cross and was forced to admit that his head could have been slammed more than half a dozen times and was thoroughly destroyed by rebuttal of the expert.

jaeger19 said:
Wrong.. the actual injury received gives evidence to the amount and force of the attack.

A previously established.
You do not know the law enough to even be discussing it.
The actual force of the impacts are irrelevant to the act.
Again, as already established. Just swinging a bag of car radios at a person is enough to use deadly force to defend your self.
You simply do not know wtf you are talking about.

jaeger19 said:
You mean like the thousands of patients that I have seen that have sustained MUCH more facial damage and weren't in life threatening situations. Or maybe the hundreds of times I have sustained such and much worse.. and never considered my self in a life threatening situation..

Yes, your personal experience means absolutely ****ing nothing.

jaeger19 said:
Getting punched in the nose and scratching your head does not add up to the need for deadly force.. no how.. no way... ESPECIALLY if you a trained in such combat and have previously been in such situations as Zimmerman had.

You are deliberately misstating the facts.

As you were already made aware.

Zimmerman was diagnosed with a "closed fracture" of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury the day after he fatally shot Martin during an alleged altercation. " And besides those, we can see in the photographs that he had multiple abrasions and swelling around his head.

He got his head slammed multiple times. It is an act that under the law would allows use of lethal force in self defense.
Period.
And again, all irrelevant, as he did not use lethal force to defend himself from those slams.
So again your argumentation is ridiculously absurd.

Excon · May 21, 2017

jaeger19 said:
The law requires proof that you are reasonably in a life threatening situation. The evidence of the injuries indicate that he was NOT sustaining any force that a reasonable person.. especially with training.. would deem life threatening.

Your reply is as wrong as it is ignorant of the law, on so many levels.
The law requires a reasonable belief that one may suffer great bodily damage or loss of life. Not that they actually be in one.

And again.
"Sufficient proof" is an evidentiary requirement to show evidence of, not actual proof. Evidence as to why the person acted in self defense. It is required to generate the jury instruction.
In this case that was provided by the prosecutor by them presenting defendant's own words.

And again. The force is irrelevant, it is the act that allows one to use lethal self defense.
Getting one's head slammed is act that can cause great bodily injury or loss of life.
And because a bag of radios being simply swung at a person is enough to generate the requisite fear to use deadly force, then getting ones head slammed repeatably into concrete is more than enough.

jaeger19 said:
... that a reasonable person.. especially with training.. would deem life threatening.

A stupid comment that is as irrelevant as it is wrong.

Any rational person, whether trained or not, is able to recognize that getting one's head slammed into the ground/concrete is an act that can cause great bodily harm or loss of life.

jaeger19 said:
You do have to support yourself with evidence.. I believe in that case.. witnesses SAW the person swing a bag of car radios at him.. WHICH CAN BE CONSTRUED AS A DEADLY WEAPON.. capable of striking with sufficient force. A reasonable person could conclude that they were in danger.

iLOL iLOL Witness? A witness to the radio being stolen, yes. A portion caught on a CCTV camera, yes. He was the witness to the stabbing and the bag swing. Duh!

You are not fooling anybody with your bs.
Had this been Trayvon swinging a bag of radios at Zimmerman you would be complaining that the bag never hit him and may not have inflicted such an injury if it did.

jaeger19 said:
In Zimmermans case.. you have only his testimony.. [...] That he was in a life threatening situation and being beaten.

Besides being wrong, that is called evidence, duh!

jaeger19 said:
after pursuing an individual..

Dishonesty. There was no pursuit.

jaeger19 said:
THAT HAD COMMITTED NO CRIME..

Dishonesty. His actions were suspicious.
His attacking Zimmerman was a crime.

jaeger19 said:
WHO WAS NOT ARMED.

Dishonesty. He was armed with his own hands and arms and were using them to inflict unlawful damage upon Zimmerman.

jaeger19 said:
The injuries are not consistent with receiving multiple blows with any force which disputes HIS TESTIMONY.

As wrong headed an argument as it is wrong.
The actual injury received is irrelevant as the act of having your head repeatably slammed into the ground is one that can cause great bodily injury and loss of life.
As Zimmerman made clear he though he was going to pass out because of it.
You are simply making nonsensical arguments.
Stupid arguments that matter not one bit because it is not the reason Zimmerman said he used lethal force.

jaeger19 said:
They dispute his claim that he was in a life or death situation.

A stupid argument that is as wrong as it is dumb.
1. Getting ones head slammed into the ground/concrete is an act that cause great bodily injury or loss of life.
Even the expert Forensics Pathologist testified to that it was.
You simply do not know what you are talking about.
2. He never claimed this act was a life or death situation. iLOL

jaeger19 said:
Excon said:

Wrong on both counts.
Someone who confronts you angrily, attacks you and knocks you to the ground, mount ~~you and then repeatable slams you head into the ground is the aggressor.~~

Click to expand...

Not true. If I have been followed by a strange person in my neighborhood at night.. and they follow me when I try to avoid them.. and then I ask why they are following me.. and angrily tell them to stop and they attempt to draw a weapon.. THEY ARE THE AGGRESSOR.. and under the law.. I am perfectly and reasonably justified in defending myself by using deadly force including trying to get them to the ground and stop them from shooting me.

And the evidence suggest what I just said.. not your premise.

Your reply is as stupid as it is dishonest.
I supplied the unrefuted evidence above, you on the other hand replied with irrational made up bs.

Excon · May 21, 2017

jaeger19 said:
A kid.. with NO ARREST RECORD. NONE.

A young adult.
And he would have been arrested but the school implemented a program for black teens so they would not be arrested. Talk about stupid.
His actions though were crimes.

And again Zimmerman's action were of coming to defense of a friend which is far different than the drugs and thievery and street fighting Trayvon was involved in.

And the restraining order was mutual. It is meaningless.

jaeger19 said:
A fellow.. training a year in MMA,

And you already know from the trainers testimony that ...

Zimmerman was not proficient at grappling.
Had never gotten in the ring.
Never learned how to effectively punch.
Was "nonathletic” and “just physically soft.”

And yet you continue to spout nonsense about his training. That is truly sad.

jaeger19 said:
Like I said.. intelligent people understand why there is some racism involved here.

iLOL
No, ignorant racist ****s think there is.

jaeger19 said:
More crime is committed by white people.

As white folks make up a larger % of the population, if all things were equal they damn well should make up the largest portion comminting crimes.
But the problem here is that blacks, by race, disproportionately commit far more crimes than whites do.

jaeger19 said:
Nice.. and whites still commit more violent crimes. and more crime in general. its just a fact.

Which is irrelvant to proportionality.

jaeger19 said:
Statistically you have more to fear being raped, murdered, burglared, aggravated assaulted etc by a white person. They simply commit more crime in general.

iLOL No. All you are doing is showing you lack understanding.
That is not how it works. You have more to fear from encountering a black man than you do a white man.

jaeger19 said:
According to your logic.. if I walk to closely to a lady and she opens a door fast and the door hits me on my nose and then I fall back and scratch my head on concrete.. I am free to shoot her because obviously a bloody nose and a scratched head equal the need for deadly force.

Your argument is as stupid and wrong as it is irrational.

Excon · May 21, 2017

sear said:
Excon said:

You were not lead to believe anything of the sort.

Click to expand...

"1. False. He was a Neighborhood Watch Captain in his own gated complex." V #277 - copied from post #279

There you go E #285. A "gated complex". Therefore it would by law have had to have common walkways. You and V #277 can squabble among yourselves about it.

Your reply is as stupid and lame as it is irrelevant.

You are the one who said you studied this case for months.
That would indicate you know the evidence of this case, yet what has become clear to probably everybody, is that you simply do not know what you are speaking about at all in regards to the available evidence.
What you provided lead no one to believe that except those who wish to make things up.
Zimmerman never said he was walking on the approved pathways. Period.
He said he was up on the grass. Period.
He said so in the walk-through video and in statements to the police.

Had you known the evidence you would know these things.

Written statement to the police.

Tonight, I was on my way to the grocery store when I saw a male approximately 5'11'' to 6'2'' casually walking in the rain looking into homes.

Walk-through video.

He was walking like in the grassy area. Like up towards, kinda between these two poles. Like I said it was rainy, and he wasn't, he was just, leisurely looking at the house [...]

He goes on to talk about the past history of that specific area and it's break-ins.
He then said that he drove past this person who was staring at him and looking around.
When he was asked by the detective if the person stopped or had walked off Zimmerman said ...

He stopped and looked around.

The detective specifically asked if he was on the sidewalk or in the grassy and Zimmerman told him he was in the grassy area.

To any rational person, Trayvon's actions were suspicious.
Period.

sear said:
Excon said:

"... all he did was follow." E #286

Click to expand...

More convenient for you if you leave out the little detail of the homicide.

JFC! We are arguing a specific point in time and what happened. Not what comes later.
Nothing you have said or provided changes that fact.
And it was for a very short distance that he did so and then stopped.

So his later killing Trayvon is irrelevant to the argument of this specific point, not convenience. Duh!

sear said:
BUT !!

If it was as simple, as clear-cut as you present it to be, then why was there a prosecution at all?
If it was as simple as you claim?

You do not know why prosecutions happen? It is to establish if the accused actually did something wrong.

But in this case there shouldn't have been a charge or a prosecution (as demonstrated by the evidence and final verdict). But that was never going to happen with the public outcry swayed by a dishonest press.

sear said:
Correction:
What he did was provide accusatory, disparaging description to Sanford police dispatch, including calling the subject an @$$hole. BASED ON WHAT !?!
Then Zimmerman closed on the school boy, forced a confrontation, and Zimmerman shot the school boy dead.

Wrong.
That is a statement of resignation, it is in-general and is not directed at the individual.

sear said:
Excon said:

sear said:

"If you want to look in a window WHILE WALKING, it might be mildly unethical.
But even if guilty, not worthy of summary execution." s

Click to expand...

Dishonest bs.
No one said it worthy of summary execution." E #284

Click to expand...

Zimmerman had shot TM dead within a few minutes of that.

So you're making a distinction between being shot dead, and summary execution?

Stop with the dishonesty.
Trayvon was shot minutes later for a different reason. Duh!
A reason that under the law allows a person to use lethal force in self defense.
Try learning the difference.

sear said:
"SUMMARY EXECUTION?"

Could you get even more dramatic and hysterical?

Please?
V #301

Click to expand...

It was arrived at quite rationally.

TM has been criticized for walking with his eyes open. FINE! But it's not worthy of summary execution. That's a fact.

More dishonesty. Figures.
Your coment is irrational and could have only been arrived through irrationally thinking.
Because again, Trayvon was not shot for his supicious activity of looking into the homes, he was shot becasue he made an attempt to murder the person he illegally attacked.

Excon · May 21, 2017

sear said:
What Z said was:

Zimmerman: Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a
real suspicious guy ... 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.

Click to expand...

Please note ZIMMERMAN'S words.
Not STANDING around, or looking into windows.
The verbs Zimmerman used were "walking" and "looking".

1. iLOL Irrelevant.
Neither have to be a crime in order to be suspicious.

2. You again show you have not paid attention to the totality of the evidence.
He did stop and was looking around which contributed to the suspiciousness of his behavior.

sear said:
"who was casing the area for burglary prospects"

Click to expand...

is absolute nonsense.

I've never seen any evidence for that, and don't recall any such similar thing being introduced at trial.

Another bs reply.
While no one can establish with any certainty that was what Trayvon was doing, it is certainly what it looks like.
Denying that is absurd.
And yes you did hear it introduced at trial, when the prosecution provided the walk-through video.

sear said:
Ironic.

I've steadfastly taken the side of law and order. That is traditionally recognized as a conservative position.
But I easily understand how reactionaries would need to have that explained to them.

Hilariously absurd.
You have not taken the side of law and order, you have continuously taken the side of dishonest irrational made up bs.

Not even the Prosecution was dumb enough to argue the nonsense you are.

sear said:
After you post the statutory language that prohibits my use of the word "-stalked", I will surrender to the appropriate law enforcement authorities (depending on whether the law I've violated is federal, State, regional, county, or local).

Until then, you're whining. GROW UP!

You have already been shown you are wrong.
Not just by the specific applicable State and Federal laws covering the crime of Stalking, but by general definition as well.

It is you who are whining and should follow your own advice.

sear said:
But it was CLEARLY Zimmerman that had armed himself for confrontation.

No sear, he was armed for protection as is allowed by the Constitution.
Your argument is lame.

sear said:
And of their two records, Zimmerman's is the more serious.

And as already provided, no it is not.
Zimmerman's was caused by coming to the defense of his friend against an unknown attacker.
That is a noble act.

None of Trayvon's can be described as such.

sear said:
that the defenders of the vigilante Zimmerman, the armed adult that disregarded:
- common sense
- Neighborhood Watch published guidelines, and
- Sanford police dispatch guidance,
and shot dead the school boy walking to his father's location from the candy store;

There you go trying to spin that negative false narrative again.
Calling the police is not being a vigilante. Responding appropriately with lethal force is not being a vigilante as the law allows it. So deliberate dishonesty on your part.
Zimmerman did not disregard common sense. He followed it. So absurdity on your part.
Zimmerman is not beholden to NW guidelines. So irrelevant.
Zimmerman did not disregard any police dispatch guidance - so that is just more deliberate dishonesty.
Trayvon was a young adult old enough to be emancipated and join the Military who engaged in criminal activity. Calling him a schoolboy is done for no other reason than to paint a false sympathetic narrative.
And he was not coming from a candy store, he was returning from a gas station. Again, you again deliberately try to spin false narrative.

That is all you have, false made up bs and spin.

sear said:
their case is to lie about TM being a "thug" we're better off without.
[definition]

iLOL
You are trying to deflect. Figures.

1. a violent person, especially a criminal.

Thug

That fits Trayvon to a T.

sear said:
But Zimmerman is a killer.

Yes he is. A legal killer of a criminal.
Wow, you finally got something right.

sear said:
But Zimmerman is a killer.

Is TM really MORE of a thug than Zimmerman ?! OF COURSE NOT !!

Of course he is a killer.
Yet you then go back to getting things wrong as usual. Figures.

Excon · May 21, 2017

sear said:
Zimmerman apologists in this thread have opined that innocent old Zimmerman was merely trying to track TM until the police arrived.

Oh look a Trayvon apologist being wrong and spinning the narrative again. Figures.

No one said he was tracking Trayvon.
He followed to observe and report to police. That is not tracking.

Stop with the dishonesty.

sear said:
But Z could have done that and simultaneously maintained a 50' margin between Z & TM.

A stupid comment.
Trayvon was gone.
He was not seen in the area when Zimmerman passed by the T, as he told the call-taker when he passed by the T that Trayvon had ran.
It was only when Zimmerman headed back to his vehicle did Trayvon come at him from his left rear.

That is all on Trayvon. So stop making things up to believe. Your made up bs is not evidence.

sear said:
Had Zimmerman done that, and TM thuggishly attacked Z as some claim here,
Z would have had 40' to observe TM's aggressive charge, and 10' to aim and fire point-blank, without a scratch to Z (except a little ringing in his ears).

All made up bs.
Trayvon was out of sight and safe but later came back and attacked Zimmerman, coming at him from his left rear.

sear said:
Ockham's Razor:
Z did not approach properly, and
Z did not properly identify himself as Neighborhood Watch (which in fact at the time he was not).

Oy vey!
No. Just more stupid, made up, delusional bs.
That you added in that he was in fact not NW at the time should have made you realize that what you said just before was irrelevant, besides it being irrelevant in general as Zimmerman was beholden to the law, not NW guidelines.

sear said:
TM may have had parallel thoughts.
That doesn't mean TM was the aggressor.

D'oh!
No, the evidence shows he was the aggressor.

sear said:
And contrary to the libelous assertion in #331,

It is impossible to libel a dead guy.

sear said:
according to Z's own disclosure to Sanford police dispatch,
TM ran AWAY from Z, not toward him.

And as you were already told, it was further clarified that Trayvon had left in a skipping like fashion.

sear said:
If TM were the assaultive thug some portray him as here, why didn't TM run TOWARD Z when Z reported to dispatch:
[...]
TM:
- knew Z was surveying TM
- and took deliberate action to NOT engage Z, by turning and running AWAY from Z, according to Z's own report to police.

So this magical 180 degree flip-flop Z's rabid defenders attribute to TM simply aren't consistent with human behavior.

A question and comment as lame as it is irrelevant.
First of all Trayvon circled his vehicle, not only is that an act of intimidation, but also one of sizing up. Had he been able to strike at Zimmerman through the glass of the vehicle it may likely have happened. Which should also demonstrate why you shouldn't argue hypothetical nonsense.

sear said:
It was TM that ACCORDING TO Z's OWN REPORT that ran AWAY.

Even though you were already informed, you continue to misstate the record.
He took off in a skipping like fashion as Zimmerman later clarified

sear said:
This blaming the victim nonsense is conspicuously absurd, PARTICULARLY in light of the facts known to us in this case.

That is why you should stop blaming Zimmerman.
Because the facts of this case prove you wrong.

Excon · May 21, 2017

sear said:
I quoted Zimmerman. If you want to mislabel that my fantasy; that tells us all we need to know about your position.

Yes you did quote Zimmerman.
But as already pointed out to you, there is more available information to quote from.
So relying solely on his call to report the suspicious person puts you in a position of failure.

sear said:
Evidently your standard of integrity isn't any better for editorial sources than it is for killers.

iLOL Said the one who has basically only made dishonest arguments from the get.

sear said:
Study journalism.

You also said you studied this case yet your arguments show you haven't. So you are not believable.

sear said:
You have a lot to learn about journalistic integrity; or integrity in general for that matter.

No, that clearly is you.

sear said:
I'm defending an innocent school boy against a wrongful death, a homicide.

No you are not.
You are doing nothing but providing lies, and showing folks you have no idea of what you speak.

sear said:
I haven't misused the word stalk. It's what Zimmerman did. And under penalty of perjury I'll swear to that use in open court under oath, premised on verifying the Sanford police transcript I've quoted.

This is a lie.
Zimmerman did not stalk.
Your lie has already been refuted.

sear said:
I do not accept your premise that TM was "a phony tough kid".
We know by the time-line Z established with Sanford police dispatch that TM made a considered, deliberate decision; not a spur of the moment decision he'd have likely spontaneously reversed.
TM was no dummy.
TM knew Z was BIG TROUBLE (a fact even arm-chair QB's like you can't deny) and LITERALLY ran out of sight of him for TM's own safety. The notion that TM then would have reversed himself, and stalked Z is ABSURD !!

Delusional irrationality.

sear said:
Beyond that, there's no need for speculating about who stalked ("locomote" if you prefer) who.
Zimmerman CONFESSED TO SANDFORD POLICE DISPATCH THAT HE DID !!! I have no information that it's ever been disputed; that for example Z lied to the dispatcher.

This is a lie.
There was no stalking.
It was already pointed by definition what stalking means. It does not fit what occurred or your lame arguments that it does.
He attempted to simply follow to keep Trayvon under observation. That is not stalking.

Not even the prosecutor made such stupid argument.
So stop being dishonest.

sear said:
I believe, based upon Zimmerman's timeline report to Sanford police dispatch, and my differential profile of each of them, that TM tried to avoid a confrontation, and that Z confessed (see quotation above) to attempting to force one.

iLOL
You believe nonsense as has been repeatable pointed out.

sear said:
If Z had been late to an important meeting when he first spotted TM, would Z have taken the time to halt his travel, and chat it up with Sanford police dispatch?
No. Z made the time, and Z had all the time he needed for this.
Z brought a loaded gun.
And there's ample indication by his comments such as referring to TM as an @$$hole, that for virtual zero reason Z was scathingly contemptuous of TM from the start.

Made up nonsense.

sear said:
"Suspicious"?
What did TM do that rendered him "suspicious"?
"Walking" and "looking" are not crimes!

You already know he was reported to have been looking into the homes.
So all you are doing again is showing everyone you choose to be dishonest.

sear said:
No BODY has layed a finger on me. I've been contradicted, but never persuasively refuted.
To my knowledge, I have not in this thread posted one single factual error that has been corrected. To the contrary, I've mopped the floor with you people.

There have been some extremely bizarre assumptions attributed to me, such as that I thought Z had violated one specific stalking law. But the fact is I simply CORRECTLY used the word "stalking" as a verb.

Delusional irrelevancies.
You have been proven wrong over and over again. And the mopping was done by those refuting your irrational bs.

And no, you didn't correctly use the word stalking.
You were proven wrong on that.

sear · May 21, 2017

"Stop with the dishonesty." E #381

After you stop beating your wife.

Salsassin · May 22, 2017

Interesting thread.
So what are the 10 biggest points of contention?

blackjack50 · May 22, 2017

sear said:
.

Then I'm not doing very well. For we're on page 37 and I haven't been correctly flagged with even one factual error yet.
Not one!
There have been contradictions, not refutations.

I never tried. And I never asserted Z broke any stalking law.
But I will allow to pass unchallenged your implication that there is one.
And thanks for your support.
The USC language I posted was to define the word. I don't recall having asserted that alone was the violation of law Z was guilty of.
Rather petty, in the case of homicide, don't you think?
But to appease the delicate Nellies, I have substituted the verb "locomote". Didn't seem to improve the discourse all that much.
I haven't misused the word stalk. It's what Zimmerman did. And under penalty of perjury I'll swear to that use in open court under oath, premised on verifying the Sanford police transcript I've quoted.

I was hoping you would go back to this:

sear said:
For ANYthing to be "night-stalking"

b) The second test it MUST pass is that it be stalking, which it was according to 18 USC § 2261A.

Excellent.
Take it up with the attorney general.
I don't supply the definitions.
I merely apply them according to contemporary linguistic conventions, as they apply to the actual wording of our coded law.

I .

And

sear said:
I.

For one very obvious example:
ACCORDING TO Z'S OWN CONFESSION TO POLICE !! Z night-stalkedthe school boy walking home from the candy store that night.

.

In addition, night-stalking is a crime under 18 USC.

So you didn't assert he committed a crime? A crime you defined as "night stalking." And you didn't provide us with a specific law that he violated? Really? It seems direct quotes contradict your current statements pretty well.

So you claim he "night stalked," and then you say "night stalking" is a crime. You defined night stalking as the crime that falls under this:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2261A

Now you want to claim you didn't do that. Even though we can directly quote you doing so. And of course...there is the fact that this is an interstate law. As in...it does not apply in this case. Unless of course...you can show us where Zimmerman crossed state lines to "night stalk" Trayvon? Which would be impressive given that the closest state line is Georgia. Which is a pretty long drive. I know since I live in Florida. Or I suppose he could have taken a water route. Can you show that? Where was his boat?

See. Here is the problem. You want to claim this is "petty," but it makes all the difference. You want to paint Zimmerman as this "big bad man." And Trayvon as this "sweet innocent boy coming from the candy store." And that isn't reality. That is you introducing emotion and bias (you claimed Zimmerman was a racist remember? And that is what we call an ulterior motive).

You don't want this case to be about the facts. The facts don't support a homicide charge. And I'd be willing to say that a lesser charge of negligent manslaughter (can't remember the Florida law)...MIGHT apply. But good luck. Stand your ground would probably apply. And it would still run into the issue of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

YOU want to convict Zimmerman on speculation. And on accusations of crimes he didn't commit. I want the Truth to be made clear and evident, but I may not get that. So I will settle for the indisputable facts:

On a rainy night in Florida...a dumbass wannabe thug and a dumbass wannabe cop cross paths. Emphasis on wannabe for both.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Salsassin · May 22, 2017

Zimmerman stated that he first saw Martin looking into a window of a house that had been previously cased and whose owner was a White man. That in itself would be deemed suspicious. More importantly, once you map the house that was cased and which Zimmerman gave an address for, 1460 Retreat view Circle, which, when mapped is not on the way home from the 7-11, but a clear detour.
https://twitter.com/salsassin/status/864932370054606848

Salsassin · May 22, 2017

The dictionary definition of stalking is: to pursue or approach prey, quarry, etc., stealthily.

No indication Zimmerman ever did that. But, the fact that Martin was able to approach Zimmerman and land the punch, would indicate stealth. So we could say Martin was stalking Zimmerman.

The legal definition of stalking for Florida is: §784.048(2), Florida Statutes. 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.

Both all caps elements are missing, so neither in the dictionary definition, nor the legal definition that standing in the area was Zimmerman stalking Martin.

blackjack50 · May 22, 2017

Salsassin said:
The dictionary definition of stalking is: to pursue or approach prey, quarry, etc., stealthily.

No indication Zimmerman ever did that. But, the fact that Martin was able to approach Zimmerman and land the punch, would indicate stealth. So we could say Martin was stalking Zimmerman.

The legal definition of stalking for Florida is: §784.048(2), Florida Statutes. 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.

Both all caps elements are missing, so neither in the dictionary definition, nor the legal definition that standing in the area was Zimmerman stalking Martin.

If one applies the dictionary definition...that is a matter of subjective opinion. And a lesser standard. Which was not was done. A claim of interstate stalking was made. Lol.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Salsassin · May 22, 2017

blackjack50 said:
If one applies the dictionary definition...that is a matter of subjective opinion. And a lesser standard. Which was not was done. A claim of interstate stalking was made. Lol.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Federal Interstate laws obviously don't apply. What I was stating was that, not only do Florida state stalking laws not apply, but even proper dictionary language doesn't apply. And no, dictionary definitions are not subjective either.

jaeger19 · May 22, 2017

Excon said:
Wrong as usual.
As already pointed out you do not know what you are talking about.
I will point out why, but as we already know you will not learn.

The terminology used was "sufficient proof".
That is an evidentiary statement, it indicates that a showing of evidence is required to be presented to the jury for the purpose of using an "affirmative defense".
It is not a requirement to prove that it happened to be able to use an affirmative defense.
Your idea that it requires actual proof is stupid. Thinking of it that way is counter to what was explained in the presentation.
If the requirement was to provide actual proof and not just evidence (as you have been continually told) there would be no need for a trial at that point because it would have already been proven.
You simply do not understand what you are talking about.

.

Yeah.. sorry but you don't know what you are talking about. Under the law.. he is required to provide evidence or proof that he was reasonably justified in using deadly force. THATS the law.. that's what you linked/quoted.

Simply "articulating what happened" is not sufficient proof.

You have to provide evidence that supports what you articulated happened.. actually did. Depending on the state to varying degree... generally not at a level of "beyond a reasonable doubt".. but sometimes really close.. "preponderance of the evidence"

Your premise that one simply has to articulate to the court what happened and that's good enough is absurd.

If that were true.. Self defense would be the main defense that all assaults, murders cases would use.

"why did you kill your wife?"

"She came at me with a knife and tried to stab me".

Well then... you are free to go....

No sir...

Evidence would have to be produced... the knife she used, her fingerprints on the knife.. your 911 call.. so on and so forth.

Otherwise every criminal would simply claim self defense.

But they don't and that's because an affirmative defense switches the onus onto the defendant.

You are as wrong as your reply is irrational.
You misstate the facts and try to spin them to fit your imagined negative narrative. It is nothing more than irrational made up bs.
Following in a car? Not really. He drove ahead of him each time to observe him.

Why.. talk about trying to "spin".. so he didn't follow him because as he walked.. he drove his car to keep observing him.. but according to you that's not following... :roll:

He then got out of it to follow in the direction Trayvon went to continue observing, but stopped by suggestion.

Obviously he didn't. Otherwise he would have been in his car.

And his speaking of resignation to the situation establishes no such thing.

Of course it does...

If there were two men in a bar.. and one leaves and the other says to bartender... "that A hole.. the always get away"... then gets up and purposely follows the fellow out of the bar..

And they end up in a scrap?... the statements of the person following would certainly establish intent.

sear · May 22, 2017

"Excellent.
Take it up with the attorney general.
I don't supply the definitions.
I merely apply them according to contemporary linguistic conventions, as they apply to the actual wording of our coded law.

So you didn't assert he committed a crime?" b5 #387

"The dictionary definition of stalking is: to pursue or approach prey, quarry, etc., stealthily.
No indication Zimmerman ever did that." S #389

I have used the word "homicide" repeatedly in this thread, and may even have introduced it.
I have said I believe I could have prosecuted this case, and gotten a conviction of Zimmerman.

I have cited both legal, AND dictionary definitions of "stalk".

I do not recall ever having suggested Z should be, or should have been CHARGED with stalking.
I do not recall ever having suggested Z should be, or should have been CHARGED with stalking.
I do not recall ever having suggested Z should be, or should have been CHARGED with stalking.
Prove me wrong.
Quote my words claiming Zimmerman should be CHARGED with stalking.
Good luck with that!

I needed a verb to address the behavior Z confessed to via telephone to Sanford police dispatch.

"Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Ok

We already know, due to Z's own account, that TM ran from Z while Z was ostensibly stationary.
If Z followed TM in such way that TM was aware of being followed from behind, TM could have resumed running,
and fled both Z, AND toward the refuge of the private residence, TM's original destination, where Z would then have had
TM cornered, contained; and awaited the arrival of police, without one drop of human blood being spilled; not Z's, not TM's.

http://bcclist.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-
path.jpg *

Instead of semi-circling the intervening building clockwise thereby Z making his approach deliberately overt,
it seems Z sneaked around the building counterclockwise, closing the distance out of sight or sound of TM, so that Z
could suddenly appear, at night, blocking TM's path to refuge.
Know it or not, believe it or not, like it or not, admit it or not, that's a terrifying scenario for anyone;
especially when it's an armed, aggressive adult pursuing & fixated on a child clearly seeking refuge.

IN ADDITION:
Neither you nor I was there, yet we BOTH know what Z's attitude was toward TM.
Would you really have us believe TM wasn't smart enough to figure it out, when his life was on the line?

Z's attitude and equipment shaped Z's behavior.
Z's contempt for TM was conspicuous from the very beginning, multiplied by Z's own bias confirmation.
CLEARLY Z was deliberately prepared for such confrontation. And Z clearly made time in his schedule for this homicide.

Had Z's approach been proper, the way police are trained to do (not jumping out from the dark at night) stalking
might not have been the correct verb.
But because of not only what Z did, but how Z did it; "night-stalking" accurately describes it.

I do not recall ever having suggested Z should be, or should have been CHARGED with stalking.
I do not recall ever having suggested Z should be, or should have been CHARGED with stalking.
I do not recall ever having suggested Z should be, or should have been CHARGED with stalking.

GET OVER IT !!

* I've embedded this graphic in this thread already in previous posts. At present the system declares the URL not valid; the same URL it accepted the previous time.

sear · May 22, 2017

"So you didn't assert he committed a crime?" b5 #387

I observed what Sanford police corroborated, that Z committed the homicide that night.

BUT !!

Before Z could do that, Z had to close the distance between himself and TM.
So in violation of Sanford police dispatch guidance (re-quoted above), Z ignored both
Sanford police standards, AND Neighborhood Watch.org standards, closed on TM
and shot TM dead.

WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU EXPECT TO HAPPEN?!?! if all those rules are broken all at once?

THAT'S WHAT THOSE RULES ARE FOR!! To prevent such needless death and injury.

" then you say "night stalking" is a crime "

No.
I was more specific than that.

In addition, night-stalking is a crime under 18 USC.

But I apologize, for in that assertion I under-stated the case. What I claimed is TRUE, but limited.
Under 18 USC, such stalking as defined by that code is a crime 24 hours a day; not only at night.

My intended point was that it's a crime EVEN at night, WITHIN THE BOUNDS DEFINED BY 18 USC.
And if it were NOT a crime, why would there be a law about it ?!?!?!?!?!

As has already been pointed out, 18 USC doesn't apply in Z's case.
I refuse to argue that point here.
Instead I accept YOUR position on it; WHATEVER that may be.
So you're desperately awaiting my validation?! WHY ?!

"YOU want to convict Zimmerman on speculation."

So far as I recall, I'm the one that introduced the written transcript (text) of the Sanford police dispatch telephone conversation w/ Z.

It's not in any way clear to me that I've speculated more, or even as much as you and others that have posted in this thread.

jaeger19 · May 22, 2017

Jack Hays said:
Irrelevant. Your claim in #350:

Walking down the street.. I have more to fear from a white person than I do from a black person.

Because of the equal pools observation any individual black you encounter is more likely to be a criminal than any individual white. QED

Walking down a street is not equal pools:

Polar bears are known to be far more aggressive than black bears..

According to you then.. walking in the woods.. I am far more likely to be attacked by a polar bear.

Oooops.. not..

Sorry.. but the fact that the US is not an "equal pool".. makes your claim invalid.

jaeger19 · May 22, 2017

Vox said:
Surrounded by bright light.......you choose to be blind.

:mrgreen:

The statistics clearly show that blacks are far more dangerous than whites.......doing most of the crime.

BUT.......let's get more specific. It's wrong to use 13% as the black percentage of the general population when talking about crime.

Truth is, most of the crime is done by young black men......and THEY are about SIX percent of the population.

And (focus now) a huge number of THEM are ALREADY in prison and can't commit any crimes.

Starting to get it, Jaeger?

:mrgreen:

The few remaining young black men out on the street really have to offend and attack often and zealously to manage to commit most of the crime in America.

There's the epiphany you so desperately needed. You have almost nothing to fear from a white person.

A young black man, however........he's got a job to do.

:ind:

Actually.. when exposed to the light.. you scurry.

Statistically, you are far far far more likely to be a victim of a white person. That's just statistical fact.

I get that you want to distract from that fact.. but that's the case.

Your fear of young black men is completely unjustified statistically.

But it certainly furthers racist attitudes however.

Jack Hays · May 22, 2017

jaeger19 said:
Walking down a street is not equal pools:

Polar bears are known to be far more aggressive than black bears..

According to you then.. walking in the woods.. I am far more likely to be attacked by a polar bear.

Oooops.. not..

Sorry.. but the fact that the US is not an "equal pool".. makes your claim invalid.

Well, no. You're the one who set the "walking down the street" scenario. It is simply a statistical fact that any individual black is more likely to be a criminal than any individual white.

sear · May 22, 2017

JH #397

The statistical obstacle being stumbled over here is:

- there's a difference between the odds of it being a dark-skinned person *
- and the differential criminality of whether it's a White person, or a Black person.

In addition, there are numerous other considerations:
- sex
- age
- profile (is it a 98 pound woman walking to a photo-shoot in costume?) Or is it an 18 year old, in sweat-suit, carrying a baseball bat?
- what are the surroundings? Dozens of witnesses in broad daylight? Or unwitnessed, at night?

* There are some persons from India whose skin is quite dark. But such citizens of India often lack the characteristics often present in Africans; tight-curled hair, broad nose, etc.
I don't know just how racist we're trying to be here.

jaeger19 · May 22, 2017

blackjack50 said:
I believe there were also references to fighting in texts. And the fact that his toxicology report did have him as having TJC in his system. And then there are the ingredients for Lean.

He wasn't a thug. He was a wannabe.

Right...:roll:

Dude.. come on. Martin "referenced fighting in texts"

Zimmerman trained for a year in MMA 3 x week.

Zimmerman had two prior charges of VIOLENCE.. one with a POLICE OFFICER.

Yes. And the restraining order was also filed against his wife. Are you unfamiliar with how domestic violence plays out? And resisting? Yea. He was a drunken idiot there. Was he drunk the night of the incident?

Yep.. so two examples of him being violent.
And yes.. I understand how domestic VIOLENCE.. tends to play out.

A wannabe thug. Get rich or die tryin! Ever meet a 17 year old kid? There are plenty who pretend to be tough because of the stupid music they listen too. And wasn't his dad an actual thug piece of ****? I can't remember? Gang ties and so on? I'm sure he was a great role model. All irrelevant.

Whats not irrelevant is that Zimmerman had actual problems with violence and the law.

LMAO! WHAT? Because you believe the Hispanic man is guilty? I bet if he was white you would believe him.

The evidence points to racism being involved.

Heck.. you started down that road when you claimed the police were using "probabilities".. and the juror "identifying with a concealed weapons holder" etc.

Be honest here.

Jack Hays · May 22, 2017

sear said:
JH #397

The statistical obstacle being stumbled over here is:

- there's a difference between the odds of it being a dark-skinned person *
- and the differential criminality of whether it's a White person, or a Black person.

In addition, there are numerous other considerations:
- sex
- age
- profile (is it a 98 pound woman walking to a photo-shoot in costume?) Or is it an 18 year old, in sweat-suit, carrying a baseball bat?
- what are the surroundings? Dozens of witnesses in broad daylight? Or unwitnessed, at night?

* There are some persons from India whose skin is quite dark. But such citizens of India often lack the characteristics often present in Africans; tight-curled hair, broad nose, etc.
I don't know just how racist we're trying to be here.

The statistical pools are strictly US African Americans and US whites. It's not a matter of racism; it's simply a statistical fact that a higher percentage of blacks are convicted of crimes. That is the basis of sentencing reform.

Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman Revisited

sear

Advisor, aka "bub"

Excon

Excon

Excon

Excon

Excon

Excon

Excon

Excon

sear

Advisor, aka "bub"

Salsassin

Member

blackjack50

Salsassin

Member

Salsassin

Member

blackjack50

Salsassin

Member

jaeger19

sear

Advisor, aka "bub"

sear

Advisor, aka "bub"

jaeger19

jaeger19

Jack Hays

Traveler

sear

Advisor, aka "bub"

jaeger19

Jack Hays

Traveler