Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman Revisited

sear · May 22, 2017

JH #425

I've already read it twice.
The second reading added nothing.

a) "Late"?
I've been posting in this thread for most of its length.

b) "Uninformed"?
If you have ANY evidence that I'm less informed than you, please post it.
If you don't, do you plan to post a retraction? Or are you just a lying troll?

Salsassin · May 22, 2017

jaeger19 said:
Yes he does. As I stated though.. he does not have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Read what you linked to.

No, you read it as you are obviously not understanding the judgés decision.

"To repeat, the law did not require defendant to prove his justification of self-defense to any standard measuring an assurance of truth. He did not have to prove the exigency of self-defense to a near certainty (reasonable doubt) or even to a mere probability (greater weight). His only burden was to offer additional facts from which it could be true, that
his resort to such force could have been reasonable."

Wrong. if that were the case.. then there would be NO burden on the defendant. Simply verbalizing.. I had to do it.. doesn't cut it.

Actually it does. And clearly you don't understand the law. I do, it is my job as an attorney. In a criminal case, the burden is on the prosecutor to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense's job is only to introduce reasonable doubt. The lawyer could just say, it was self defense, here are the elements of self defense, and that is it, and if the jury found reasonable doubt, that person is acquitted. In a criminal court, there is no burden of proof for the defendant in Florida.

"If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty."
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/chapters/chapter3/p1c3s3.6.f.rtf

Or more likely.. they know that they aren't going to convince a jury that Zimmerman was guilty and martin not a "thug" or "wannabe thug".. not matter the evidence.

Yeah, right. :roll: The usual excuses for people who can't win.

Neither.. we are talking about whether you go to trial and be convicted.

Won't go to trial if there are no arrests, so the first one applies.

Supposition on your part.

Not quite. That is what the evidence shows. 30 Seconds, until the dispatcher says, "it is not necessary" and Zimmerman says OK. There is no physical evidence to contradict that claim.

Except he used in direct reference to martin in context.. he was not using it as a non specific. We know exactly who he was labeling an A hole.

Now that is a supposition. We know Zimmerman was upset at burglars and he thought Martin suspicious. But we have no evidence Zimmerman concluded that he was a burglar. Suspicion is not confirmation.

It was not a random comment. it was in direct connection with Martin.

Again, your supposition, but no hard evidence to prove it.

Salsassin · May 22, 2017

jaeger19 said:
Was he convicted of any charges.. heck.. were any charges brought. And fighting is not illegal. Zimmerman fought in practice in MMA.

Actually, Zimmerman was never allowed to spar. Sparring in controlled environments is legal, street fighting is not.

Florida Statutes Title XLVI. Crimes § 877.03. Breach of the peace; disorderly conduct
Whoever commits such acts as are of a nature to corrupt the public morals, or outrage the sense of public decency, or affect the peace and quiet of persons who may witness them, or engages in brawling or fighting, or engages in such conduct as to constitute a breach of the peace or disorderly conduct, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. - See more at: Florida Statutes Title XLVI. Crimes § 877.03 | FindLaw

Actually.. there is evidence of that.. in fact.. A physician that treated him testified.

She didn't testify about his training routine. Try again. She had notes that he trained 3 times a week in MMA. One, she wasn't in the gym with him so hearsay, two, it would be a notation of what Zimmerman told her which is that he would go around three times a week to the MMA gym. Not what specific routines he did and when, The testimony of the gym owner would be much more revealing and relevant.

sear · May 22, 2017

"But we have no evidence Zimmerman concluded that he was a burglar. Suspicion is not confirmation." S #427

But we know what Z told Sanford police dispatch about TM:

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. ...
Zimmerman: Somethings wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out, he's got
something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is. ...
Zimmerman: Okay. These assholes they always get away.

Transcript of George Zimmerman's Call to the Police

Based on these comments Z made to Sanford police dispatch about TM, how would you characterize Z's attitude toward TM?

What about TM rendered him an "asshole"?

Pot calls kettle black, in my opinion.

Salsassin · May 22, 2017

jaeger19 said:
Actually there was enough that the judge issued a restraining order on him.

Wrong again. A judge does not need physical proof. All he needs is to believe the situation might be toxic. It is called a Civil injunction.

And it certainly is a pattern of violence. Which by the way he has continued.

No, there was no repeat situation for over 5 years. Not a pattern. His actions after Martin with documented PTSD are irrelevant.

Martin had little to indicate any "pattern of violence".. no arrest records.. no violent arrest records or criminal charges.

Patterns don't have to lead to arrest, they just have to be verified. There is no better verification than a person's own words. Furthermore, one of the suspensions was for fighting. Again, those are Trayvon's own words.

sure it does.. racism was involved from the very first when they treated Martin like a thug and failed to investigate Zimmerman and then failed to charge him.

Hardly. Martin was treated like a little kid that he wasn't. Zimmerman wasn't arrested because of corroborating evidence.

Salsassin · May 22, 2017

sear said:
And yet even when armed with a deadly weapon, Zimmerman STILL got beat up by a school boy!
What a complete $#@!-up Zimmerman is!!

Actually, it shows Zimmerman did not have his weapon drawn and that he was ambushed.

I'm not aware of any legitimate Neighborhood Watch organization anywhere in the U.S. that endorses:
- patrolling alone
- patrolling alone while armed with a loaded gun
- forcing a confrontation, particularly in the dark, and particularly in plain (civilian) clothes
- approaching subjects without performing proper police protocols, including identifying ones self.

One, he wasn't patrolling. He was driving to Target. No evidence he forced a confrontation. What the evidence shows is that he ran, he made it to the back of the house he was staying at, and that he somehow returned to the T where he had the incident with Zimmerman. That is it. That, and the testimony both by Jeantel and Zimmerman that he spoke first.

If you have a URL to any legitimate Neighborhood Watch in the U.S. that endorses any or all of that, please post it.

I don't need to, I have seen the HOA instructions and also listened to the police officer in charge of the program
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITiCsugqoN4

But the URL I posted has standards written as they are for a reason; they're to help promote a safe, and effective patrol.
I'd be ASTOUNDED if there's an NW anywhere in the U.S. that applies substantially different, meaning more dangerous protocols.

Again, not the instructions provided to George Zimmerman.

What else could POSSIBLY have aroused Z's initial, & continuing suspicion of TM?
There's been burglaries in the area. EXCELLENT!!
What else?
Z told Sanford police dispatch TM looked Black, and was wearing a dark hoodie.
In addition, in Z's own words:

Based on these comments Z made to Sanford police dispatch about TM, how would you characterize Z's attitude toward TM?

And what were the grounds for suspicion? That there'd been burglaries in the area?
That alone wouldn't prefer TM as a suspect over any other pedestrian in the neighborhood.
And I know of no evidence that TM was ever accused of, or suspected of any criminal conduct
or probable cause at that point that night.

In Zimmerman's own words. "He was looking at the house intently, the same house that I had called about before."

That would be 1460 Retreat View Circle.

There's no attribute here. So you're not claiming to have read this opinion, and are merely passing it along.
You're asserting it as a certitude on your own authority.

BUT !!

You could not POSSIBLY know this as a certitude unless you'd read those "instructions" (your word) fully, completely, verbatim.

And if you've done that, then it should be no problem for you to post them here, so that we can verify the validity of your claim.

And when you don't, I'll accept it as your confession that your claim is pure fabrication on your part.

And in any case, your reference was NW as run by Samford (sic) police.

BUT !!

We already know Z disregarded the Sanford police dispatch guidance about pursuit, night-stalking if you prefer, of the school boy trying to reach his father.

False claim again. The instructions were to call in anything suspicious or out of place. A person who was a stranger looking intently at the house of a known neighbor, a house that had been previously cased would be enough to arouse suspicion.

Your scenario is completely absurd. There is not one shred of evidence for it.

To the contrary. There's substantial evidence TM tried to AVOID any contact with Z, including Z's own report to Sanford police dispatch.

If you were right, I'd agree. But you're not, and I don't.

Actually there is. Jeantel testified in court and in post acquittal interviews that Martin made it to the back of the house he was staying at. The fight occurred 70 yards away near the T. The only way that happened was if Trayvon chose not to go in, and chose to return instead.

sear · May 22, 2017

Part 1 of 2

"Actually, it shows Zimmerman did not have his weapon drawn and that he was ambushed." S #431

"Ambushed"?!
It was Z that was night-stalking TM, and doing so undetected by TM.
One can't ambush if one doesn't expect an encounter.
What evidence do you offer that TM expected Z to show up where and when he did?

"One, he wasn't patrolling. He was driving to Target." S #431

With a loaded gun?!
When you go shopping, do you bring a loaded gun?

And if you're asserting that Z isn't intelligent enough to multi-task, I'm prepared to concede your point. Clearly, Z is no Einstein.
None the less, when I drive to Target, I don't look for suspects at night in the dark.

"No evidence he forced a confrontation." S

Extremely to the contrary:
the preponderance of the evidence indicate BOTH that:
a) It was TM that tried to evade Z, to avoid a confrontation, and
b) that it was Z that was night-stalking TM, which Z confessed to Sanford police dispatch, and
was immediately after that informed it was not needed.

"What the evidence shows is that he ran, he made it to the back of the house" S

EXCELLENT!!

What is the evidence TM reached safe refuge?
What is the "evidence" (your word) that after having reached safe refuge, TM relinquished refuge, and pursued his pursuer?

"he somehow returned to the T where he had the incident with Zimmerman. That is it." S

That is WHAT ?!

That's the best you can do?
You're pinning your lock on this certitude as "... somehow"?!

"That, and the testimony both by Jeantel and Zimmerman that he spoke first." S

Who is "he"? They are both male.

What did "he" say?
And what was the reply?

"I don't need to" S

Retraction accepted.

sear · May 22, 2017

Part 2 of 2

"Again, not the instructions provided to George Zimmerman." S

Which you refuse to disclose in text form, as I have done with the transcript.

And again, that "911" transcript PROVES Z disregarded Sanford police dispatch guidance.

"In Zimmerman's own words. "He was looking at the house intently, the same house that I had called about before."" S

I just did a character string search for "inten" in the text transcript, and got zero hit.
So if it was ever said, it wasn't said during that telephone call.

If you have the transcript, in text, of when you allege it was said, you're free to post it.

"False claim again. The instructions were to call in anything suspicious or out of place. A person who was a stranger looking intently at the house of a known neighbor, a house that had been previously cased would be enough to arouse suspicion." S

No it wouldn't.

TM's behavior as Z described it was just as consistent with a school boy walking home from the candy store, enjoying the sights and the early evening air.

Walking is not a crime.
"Looking" is not a crime.

And please tell us all:
just what is it TM could have looked at with the approach Z described, that would have promoted benefit to a burglar?

A prospective burglar might have rattled door handles, checked windows to see if any of them could be opened from the outside, look for items that could be stolen, etc.

Walking calmly home simply isn't criminal, and is not by itself probable cause.

And the sanity check on that is that even Z confessed he didn't know what TM's deal is.

"Actually there is. Jeantel testified in court and in post acquittal interviews that Martin made it to the back of the house he was staying at. The fight occurred 70 yards away near the T. The only way that happened was if Trayvon chose not to go in, and chose to return instead." S

1) What ever she said he said is known as "hear say" evidence, and is usually inadmissible as evidence.
There are exceptions; the dying declaration exception for example.
BUT !!
There's a very good reason for the "hear say" rule. It is notoriously unreliable. And in this case, perhaps particularly so.

2) I gather the witness you're referring to is literally illiterate, and not a high school grad.
- She may have misunderstood, either by bad phone connection, or miscommunication.
- If for example TM said: "I'm home", what does that mean? That he's returned from Barbados (meaning back in his home country)?
- That he'd departed the candy store, and was now within the confines of the housing complex of his destination address?
- That the door of the residence he sought was in TM's view?
- That he'd set foot on the lawn for that unit of the complex?
- That he was on the walkway dedicated to that door?
- That his hand was on the doorknob?
- That he'd opened the door, preparing to walk inside?
- That he'd opened the door, walked inside, closed the door and locked it behind him, and then had a sudden change of mind, and rushed back outside to bust that crazy cracker in the nose?

By your description of her description, we don't know which of those, or if any of those was the actual case.

And candidly, I doubt she asked for specific clarification, and I doubt TM provided that level of specificity in casual conversation.

"The only way that happened was if Trayvon chose not to go in, and chose to return instead." S

Piffle.
The Ockham's Razor explanation is that Z blocked TM's path to refuge according to the graphic I posted.

It is the far more likely scenario.

Can you offer any reason why TM would first reach safe, secure refuge, and then immediately relinquish it for a dangerous (and in point of fact, deadly) confrontation?

Your explanation is not merely irrational. It's simply factually wrong!!

"The only way that happened was if ..." S

That's simply factually wrong. And I've proved that, by offering an alternate, and far more likely scenario.

Excon · May 23, 2017

sear said:
After you stop beating your wife.

Out of thirty eight individual quotes and replies you respond with irrational bs to deflect from having to answer for being wrong as usual.
Figures.

Your arguments have been shown to be, false, made up, spun and irrational.

You have not a leg to stand on which I will continue to point that out because the bs you have been providing deserves no quarter in debate.

sear · May 23, 2017

E #434

I glanced at it.

It was one lame jive reply after another.

- If you think there is one EXCEPTIONALLY incorrect comment I've made

- & I extend this offer to ANYone,

all you need do is:

a) quote my words, with attribute, including post serial number

b) definitively disprove it.

I'll expose the error of the ostensible exposé.

I have not found a single example of that in this thread; but eagerly await it.

I do not deny several have pretended to it. But they each have been either fantastic imagination, or delusional fabrication.

The most recent example:

"The only way that happened was ..." #433

There's more than one theory for that aspect of the incident.

jaeger19 · May 23, 2017

Salsassin said:
No, you read it as you are obviously not understanding the judgés decision.

"To repeat, the law did not require defendant to prove his justification of self-defense to any standard measuring an assurance of truth. He did not have to prove the exigency of self-defense to a near certainty (reasonable doubt) or even to a mere probability (greater weight). His only burden was to offer additional facts from which it could be true, that
his resort to such force could have been reasonable."
.

Sorry.. I very much read it and understand it. Again.. HE still has a burden.. and that's "to offer additional facts from which it could be true that his resort to such force was reasonable...

He still has a burden of proof.. just not a burden as high as beyond all reasonable doubt.

Actually it does. And clearly you don't understand the law. I do, it is my job as an attorney.

Sorry but you don't demonstrate a clear understanding of the law. in a affirmative defense.. simply saying "I had to do it" doesn't cut it.

In a criminal case, the burden is on the prosecutor to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense's job is only to introduce reasonable doubt. The lawyer could just say, it was self defense, here are the elements of self defense, and that is it, and if the jury found reasonable doubt, that person is acquitted. In a criminal court, there is no burden of proof for the defendant in Florida.

Except when using an affirmative defense. Even your post stated it :His only burden was to offer additional facts from which it could be true,

Yeah, right. The usual excuses for people who can't win.

Exactly.. and if you are an attorney then you know that there are multiple times when you can't win even though you have the best case in the world.. and there are multiple times when winning is actually losing. So you sue Zimmerman and win.. whoopee.. what you do get? Probably nada except a big fat attorney bill.

George Zimmerman?s $2.5M debt is entirely legal fees - NY Daily News

Won't go to trial if there are no arrests, so the first one applies.

The da can decide to order an arrest and take it to trial.

Not quite. That is what the evidence shows. 30 Seconds, until the dispatcher says, "it is not necessary" and Zimmerman says OK. There is no physical evidence to contradict that claim.

He says okay.. that does not mean that he has stopped pursuit. And there is physical evidence. He was not back at his car. He was not in his car.

Now that is a supposition. We know Zimmerman was upset at burglars and he thought Martin suspicious. But we have no evidence Zimmerman concluded that he was a burglar. Suspicion is not confirmation.

no evidence he concluded he was a burglar? Come now... HE CALLED THE POLICE ON HIM. When he got out of the car he said "he's running" and then he said "THESE A HOLES ALWAYS GET AWAY".

You have to work hard to be obtuse enough to declare that Zimmerman had not reached a conclusion of WHO he was referring to when he said "A hole always getting away"..

Again, your supposition, but no hard evidence to prove it.

Well.. other than his OWN WORDS IN THE CONTEXT OF REFERRING TO MARTIN...

sear · May 23, 2017

until the dispatcher says, "it is not necessary" and Zimmerman says OK. There is no physical evidence to contradict that claim.

"He says okay.. that does not mean that he has stopped pursuit. And there is physical evidence. He was not back at his car. He was not in his car." J1 #436

One at a time.

"He says okay.. that does not mean that he has stopped pursuit." J1

Correct.
BUT !!
It implies that he has, and bears the vivid appearance of Z disinforming Sanford police dispatch.

"And there is physical evidence. He was not back at his car. He was not in his car." J1

Clearly Z was not, at TOD.
In CSI parlance such evidence has long been known as "corpus delicti", in this case TM's corpse approaching ambience.

jaeger19 · May 23, 2017

Salsassin said:
Salsassin said:

Actually, Zimmerman was never allowed to spar. Sparring in controlled environments is legal, street fighting is not.

Florida Statutes Title XLVI. Crimes § 877.03. Breach of the peace; disorderly conduct
Whoever commits such acts as are of a nature to corrupt the public morals, or outrage the sense of public decency, or affect the peace and quiet of persons who may witness them, or engages in brawling or fighting, or engages in such conduct as to constitute a breach of the peace or disorderly conduct, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. - See more at: Florida Statutes Title XLVI. Crimes § 877.03 | FindLaw

Click to expand...

What is a controlled environment? If I spar in my yard with my sons (which I do).. does that violate the law?

IF martin was breaking the law with "street fighting".. please show the arrest records.. or better yet.. convictions for disorderly conduct... oh wait.. you can't because they don't exist.

She didn't testify about his training routine. Try again. She had notes that he trained 3 times a week in MMA.

Click to expand...

3 x week is a training routine...

One, she wasn't in the gym with him so hearsay, two, it would be a notation of what Zimmerman told her which is that he would go around three times a week to the MMA gym

Click to expand...

Yes.. its what Zimmerman told her.

The testimony of the gym owner would be much more revealing and relevant.

Click to expand...

Sure...

Adam Pollock, a gym owner and a trainer in the mixed martial arts and its component disciplines, testified that he had taught the "physically soft" Zimmerman some elementary grappling, boxing and conditioning classes for about a year

Click to expand...

A year of training boxing and grappling.

Zimmerman, he said, was diligent in practice, lost weight and got into better shape

Click to expand...

Hmmm diligent in practice. Lost weight and got into better shape.

For an attorney.. you aren't real good at this are you?

The testimony of the owner is very revealing. Zimmerman trained diligently for a year in grappling and boxing.

Excon · May 23, 2017

PIPEWRENCH said:
No they are not. They usually give good advice that should be followed if unsure about something. However they are not on the scene and sound advice from miles away may not be good advice for the situation at hand.

And even if the dispatcher or call-taker (as in this case) is an Officer, it is why they are not allowed to tell the caller what to do because they are not on scene and it opens them up to liability issues. They can give advice for the callers safety, but that is pretty much the limit of it.

sear · May 23, 2017

#439

The irony is, without command authority over the general public, there is command authority over the boys & girls in blue.

Thus, those that need professional guidance the most, those with the least training, with the least* OTJ experience,

they're the ones that do not receive benefit of the judgement of the one on the other end of the line.

* or none at all

blackjack50 · May 23, 2017

sear said:
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.

No.
I was more specific than that.

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 ?!

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.

I'm not looking for validation here man. I'm looking for you to prove that you are not completely incompetent when it comes to the LAW. This is about you proving that so that an honest discussion can be had.

The law you attempted to apply to Zimmerman does not. Further...it is NOT the legal definition of stalking. It is the federal legal definition on INTERSTATE stalking. This is a different charge. A different claim. You can't apply it in part and ignore the interstate portion.

The only LEGAL definition that could be applied in this case is the State of Florida legal definition on stalking, but as has been pointed out already to you...this requires repetition. This was a one time incident. So. If you want to prove you aren't incompetent with the law...you have to acknowledge clearly that Zimmerman didn't, by any valid legal definition, stalk Trayvon. Following is not stalking. The law you are stating "is a crime..." sure is a crime. But not one Zimmerman is guilty of. He didn't cross state lines. Period.

If you want to wiggle and worm and tell us how you don't have to do that...fine by me. But avoidance is just acknowledgement that you failed to prove your side and now you can't handle being wrong.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

blackjack50 · May 23, 2017

sear said:
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.

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.

See my above post. If you are wondering why this is relevant...it is because you are accusing him of a crime. You were quoted stating that stalking is a crime under the definition you provided. And then quoted again as stating that for it to be "night stalking," it must meet 2 tests. The one test you provided was the definition from the legal text you have provided again. And finally you stated that Zimmerman night stalked. Something you defined as a crime. So you are saying he committed a crime. Period.

Now. As has been shown. The definition you applied is wrong. It is the definition of interstate stalking. You are now committing the fallacy of shifting the goalposts. This is not going to fly. I have you quoted. I have YOUR words. Your EXACT words. So instead of shifting the goalposts...why not acknowledge you are wrong on using that definition? And further...that no legal definition (as in coded in the law...federal state or local), applies in this case. If you really have no skin in that...then admit you were wrong and move on. You can have your dictionary definition.

But we both know that that is subjective and mere conjecture. Which is why you can't let that go right? Because a legal definition shows for a fact he didn't stalk. But a subjective dictionary definition could be arbitrarily applied. Which would be important since it is inflammatory language and pivotal in making your claim against the "big bad zimmerman" murdering "sweet innocent baby boy Trayvon coming from the candy store."

This is important because it demonstrates your desire to stick to the facts or if you just want to flame on this because you disagree with the results.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

blackjack50 · May 23, 2017

jaeger19 said:
What is a controlled environment? If I spar in my yard with my sons (which I do).. does that violate the law?

IF martin was breaking the law with "street fighting".. please show the arrest records.. or better yet.. convictions for disorderly conduct... oh wait.. you can't because they don't exist.

3 x week is a training routine...

Yes.. its what Zimmerman told her.

Sure...

A year of training boxing and grappling.

Hmmm diligent in practice. Lost weight and got into better shape.

For an attorney.. you aren't real good at this are you?

The testimony of the owner is very revealing. Zimmerman trained diligently for a year in grappling and boxing.

Click to expand...

Does his own texts count as proof he was involved in fighting?

And didn't the owner of the Gym testify in court that on a scale of 1-10 that Zimmerman's progress went to a...1?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

blackjack50 · May 23, 2017

jaeger19 said:
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.

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

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

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.

1) The jurors involved black women if I'm not mistaken.

2) Concealed carriers are almost never involved in crime. If you would like the Florida state state on that since 1987...I can provide that.

3) Zimmerman was Hispanic.

4) Zimmerman notified police Trayvon was black. How would you describe a black person if the police asked the race? White? :eye roll:

5) so end of day...WHAT evidence points to racism? You have not a single shred of concrete evidence. Unless you go off the edited NBC audio. Which you probably did.

You just want the Hispanic man to be guilty. That seems racist to me.

Oh.

6) Trayvon was referenced as being involved in some tough physical fights and Zimmerman was said to have gotten to a level 1 of 10 by his instructor. Yea. He seems like a great fighter. :eye roll:

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

PIPEWRENCH · May 23, 2017

Excon said:
And even if the dispatcher or call-taker (as in this case) is an Officer, it is why they are not allowed to tell the caller what to do because they are not on scene and it opens them up to liability issues. They can give advice for the callers safety, but that is pretty much the limit of it.

Exactly. In most cases their advice should be heeded. Especially if you are not trained to handle the particular situation you are in. I was a neighbor hood watch and we always recommended 2 people rather than going alone. I used to enjoy walking around the neighborhood and meeting people and while was at it I watched for things that were not right. Unfortunately this put me in the position of being alone if I happened upon something. It is easy to get caught up in a bad situation especially if you happen upon more than one person. Unfortunately there are usually more than 1 person committing crimes. While you may be focusing on one person and keeping a safe distance you may never see the other bad guy until it is too late.

sear · May 23, 2017

"I'm looking for you to prove that you are not completely incompetent when it comes to the LAW. This is about you proving that so that an honest discussion can be had." b5 #441

a) Have you "proved" (your root word) that?

b) Has ANYone posting in this thread "PROVED" that?

c) What sort of proof would you want?
- credentials?
- college transcript? The list of courses I passed, under a criminal justice curriculum?
- perhaps you'd prefer my professional résumé.

"The law you attempted to apply to Zimmerman does not." b5

Quote me.
You're already wrong in this post. This is but the first example.
QUOTE ME!!
But I know you won't, because I know you can't, because I know I didn't.

"Further...it is NOT the legal definition of stalking." b5

Even if true (and it SURELY is not worth quibbling over), it's 100% irrelevant.

There's no law against using verbs on the Internet. That is the crime you accuse me of.
I've posted numerous times that I NEVER asserted Z should be CHARGED with stalking.
I merely stated an indisputable fact. Z night-stalked TM.

Several here may have contradicted this. None have disproved it.

"It is the federal legal definition on INTERSTATE stalking." b5

Key word in that sentence: "definition", my reason for quoting it.
It's not illegal for me to quote a definition. And I've quoted more than one definition of that specific word, in this thread, from law, and from dictionary.

Squeal like a stuck pig all you like about it. It doesn't change reality. Z night-stalked TM, and confessed to it to Sanford police dispatch, and I've quoted Z's confession numerous times.

"This is a different charge." b5

And I'll offer no obstruction in your attempting to press that charge in court if it'll get your panties out of the bunch it's now clearly in about it, if the statute of limitations doesn't prevent it.

"A different claim. You can't apply it in part and ignore the interstate portion." b5

Can't, and haven't.

"The only LEGAL definition that could be applied in this case is the State of Florida legal definition on stalking, but as has been pointed out already to you...this requires repetition."

Then my reply bears parallel repetition.
Your point even if valid couldn't possibly be more irrelevant. NEVER have I asserted Z should be CHARGED with stalking.
I simply exercised my First Amendment right to tell the ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Z night-stalked TM.
And if you knew much about law, you would know in particular that "night-stalking" is not specifically a legal charge of any sort.

But clearly you're more interested in whining bitterly, refuting points I've neither made, nor attempted to make, than addressing the literal meaning of my posted words.
Your posting pattern presents the impression that you do the former, because you're not adequately equipped to do the latter.

"This was a one time incident."

Isn't that just dandy!

"So. If you want to prove you aren't incompetent with the law...you have to acknowledge clearly that Zimmerman didn't, by any valid legal definition, stalk Trayvon."

Not in the least clear to me why you're so inextricably snarled up with the law.
If I had EVER asserted Z should be charged, you would be correct ON EVERY POINT !!!

But I have NEVER asserted that Z should be, or should have been. So even if 100% true, your shallow harangue is pointless. Where ever else in the multi-verse it may apply, it simply does not apply to me. For it brilliantly and articulately refutes a point I never made, attempted to make, implied, or dreamed of!

stalk (stôk) verb
stalked, stalking, stalks verb, intransitive

To track prey or quarry.

verb, transitive
1.To pursue by tracking stealthily.
2.To go through (an area) in pursuit of prey or quarry.

[Middle English stalken, from Old English -stealcian, to move stealthily (in bestealcian).]
- stalk´er noun

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

b5 adds:

"... you can't handle being wrong."

How will we ever know?

sear · May 23, 2017

PS

I'm going to put 20 miles on the Trek.

But I got a chuckle out of this:

" you are accusing him of a crime. " b5

I've never accused Z of violating a stalking law he was subject to at that time, date, and location; if any.

Any body that says otherwise is either lying, or hallucinating. Be sure and have yourself a wonderful day.

blackjack50 · May 23, 2017

sear said:
a) Have you "proved" (your root word) that?

b) Has ANYone posting in this thread "PROVED" that?

c) What sort of proof would you want?
- credentials?
- college transcript? The list of courses I passed, under a criminal justice curriculum?
- perhaps you'd prefer my professional résumé.

Quote me.
You're already wrong in this post. This is but the first example.
QUOTE ME!!
But I know you won't, because I know you can't, because I know I didn't.

Even if true (and it SURELY is not worth quibbling over), it's 100% irrelevant.

There's no law against using verbs on the Internet. That is the crime you accuse me of.
I've posted numerous times that I NEVER asserted Z should be CHARGED with stalking.
I merely stated an indisputable fact. Z night-stalked TM.

Several here may have contradicted this. None have disproved it.

Key word in that sentence: "definition", my reason for quoting it.
It's not illegal for me to quote a definition. And I've quoted more than one definition of that specific word, in this thread, from law, and from dictionary.

Squeal like a stuck pig all you like about it. It doesn't change reality. Z night-stalked TM, and confessed to it to Sanford police dispatch, and I've quoted Z's confession numerous times.

And I'll offer no obstruction in your attempting to press that charge in court if it'll get your panties out of the bunch it's now clearly in about it, if the statute of limitations doesn't prevent it.

Can't, and haven't.

Then my reply bears parallel repetition.
Your point even if valid couldn't possibly be more irrelevant. NEVER have I asserted Z should be CHARGED with stalking.
I simply exercised my First Amendment right to tell the ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Z night-stalked TM.
And if you knew much about law, you would know in particular that "night-stalking" is not specifically a legal charge of any sort.

But clearly you're more interested in whining bitterly, refuting points I've neither made, nor attempted to make, than addressing the literal meaning of my posted words.
Your posting pattern presents the impression that you do the former, because you're not adequately equipped to do the latter.

Isn't that just dandy!

Not in the least clear to me why you're so inextricably snarled up with the law.
If I had EVER asserted Z should be charged, you would be correct ON EVERY POINT !!!

But I have NEVER asserted that Z should be, or should have been. So even if 100% true, your shallow harangue is pointless. Where ever else in the multi-verse it may apply, it simply does not apply to me. For it brilliantly and articulately refutes a point I never made, attempted to make, implied, or dreamed of!

b5 adds:

How will we ever know?

You are hanging up on the word "charged." You may not have claimed he should be charged. But you ACCUSED HIM OF A CRIME. That much has been shown. Regardless of your feeling on charging him...you can't prove he is guilty of the crime. Period. The crime you ORIGINALLY alleged he was guilty of...he is not because it SPECIFICALLY requires interstate travel.

So. If you were "just using it as a definition," then you used it wrong anyway. So you can continue that track and be wrong there...again requirement is interstate travel required.

You can't find a parallel law (you would have done so by now) that applies that Zimmerman would equally be guilty of. Regardless of charging him...you can't show he was GUILTY of any legal violation. Which is still my point. He is NOT GUILTY of any stalking laws. Period.

So

question:

Was Zimmerman guilty of violating ANY stalking law? Yes or no?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

blackjack50 · May 23, 2017

sear said:
PS

I'm going to put 20 miles on the Trek.

But I got a chuckle out of this:

I've never accused Z of violating a stalking law he was subject to at that time, date, and location; if any.

Any body that says otherwise is either lying, or hallucinating. Be sure and have yourself a wonderful day.

You were directly quoted.

"Zimmerman night stalked."

Your definition was that from USC 18

Stalking under that law would be against the law.

That is accusing him of a crime.

You may not have directly stated it, but that is the practical effect of saying "so and so stalked and my definition of stalking is this legal definition and since doing so under that definition is a violation of the law..."

That's logic pumpkin.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jaeger19 · May 23, 2017

blackjack50 said:
jaeger19 said:

Does his own texts count as proof he was involved in fighting?

And didn't the owner of the Gym testify in court that on a scale of 1-10 that Zimmerman's progress went to a...1?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Interesting.. texting is evidence of fighting?..

A charge of violence against a police officer is nothing. nor is a restraining order ordered by a judge. Nor is testimony that's

And didn't the owner of the Gym testify in court that on a scale of 1-10 that Zimmerman's progress went to a...1?

Click to expand...

Yep and the DA was completely intept here. Certainly based on the PROFESSIONAL FIGHTERS in his gym..Zimmerman is a 1.

But COMPARED TO SOMEONE WITH ZERO TRAINING? He is probably a 10. after a year of training.

I would love to have cross examined this witness. "so you are saying that if someone comes to your gym FOR A YEAR.. they will still be way worse than someone with ZERO training at all... who is smaller than they are?"

Heck.. maybe he should be charged with fraud because if the above is true.. then he is defrauding his clients.

Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman Revisited

sear

Advisor, aka "bub"

Salsassin

Member

Salsassin

Member

sear

Advisor, aka "bub"

Salsassin

Member

Salsassin

Member

sear

Advisor, aka "bub"

sear

Advisor, aka "bub"

Excon

sear

Advisor, aka "bub"

jaeger19

sear

Advisor, aka "bub"

jaeger19

Excon

sear

Advisor, aka "bub"

blackjack50

blackjack50

blackjack50

blackjack50

PIPEWRENCH

sear

Advisor, aka "bub"

sear

Advisor, aka "bub"

blackjack50

blackjack50

jaeger19