Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman Revisited

[sear]

"Don't have to. It is what Z said. You can't disprove it. That's all that matters." b5 #198

You assert Z said so. You are factually WRONG!!

I've reviewed the entire Sanford police transcript from start to finish. I've posted it in this thread.

I quote the transcript:

"Dispatcher: OK, he's just walking around the area...
Zimmerman: ...looking at all the houses."

Transcript of George Zimmerman's Call to the Police

BUT !!

The assertion I was refuting was:

"on THEIR LAWNS."

I just did a character string search for the string: "lawn".
It's not in there.

And even in Sanford Florida there's no legal obligation to walk at night outdoors blindfolded.
If you want to look in a window WHILE WALKING, it might be mildly unethical.
But even if guilty, not worthy of summary execution.

And if residents don't want people looking into their window they can draw the window blinds. You're fussing about trivia here. When I don't want people to look, I draw the blinds. What's the problem?

 

[sear]

PS J1 #200

"BAck up a step.. what evidence is there that he was defending and not the aggressor? That's part of the statute...

Use or threatened use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use or threatened use of force against himself or herself,

"So where is the evidence that Zimmerman was defending himself and had not initiated or provoked the use of force by martin?" J1 #200

a) I sincerely believe sir, you have cut to the chase here. I agree that this is the pivotal question in this case.
And I as a prosecutor am confident I could have removed reasonable doubt about who the aggressor was in this case.

b) According to Z's own report to 911:
- TM ran AWAY from Z. AND !!
- Despite Sanford police dispatch guidance to the contrary, Z ran to close on TM, and forced a confrontation.

 

[blackjack50]

Sigh.. you just don't get it man. and its obvious you don't want to get it.



UNDER THE LAW.. Zimmerman has to prove that he Reasonably believed that his life was in IMMINENT danger of death or grave bodily harm and that his actions were necessary and reasonable to prevent this.

From the florida statutes:





BAck up a step.. what evidence is there that he was defending and not the aggressor? That's part of the statute...

HIS TESTIMONY AND THAT OF THE WITNESS WHO SAW HIM ON BOTTOM!!! There is no other evidence. You can't disprove his story. That's how it works. Clearly. As the jury found him 'not guilty.'

So where is the evidence that Zimmerman was defending himself and had not initiated or provoked the use of force by martin?

So provide that evidence first..that is REQUIRED under the LAW.

Again. His testimony. Which you cannot disprove.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[blackjack50]

PS J1 #200

"BAck up a step.. what evidence is there that he was defending and not the aggressor? That's part of the statute...

Use or threatened use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use or threatened use of force against himself or herself,


a) I sincerely believe sir, you have cut to the chase here. I agree that this is the pivotal question in this case.
And I as a prosecutor am confident I could have removed reasonable doubt about who the aggressor was in this case.

b) According to Z's own report to 911:
- TM ran AWAY from Z. AND !!
- Despite Sanford police dispatch guidance to the contrary, Z ran to close on TM, and forced a confrontation.

Z "ran to close." Prove it.

No proof. Pure conjecture. Nothing more. Zimmerman gave his side. Now you want to pretend the rules don't apply because you disagree with his decision morally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sear]

"Z "ran to close." Prove it.

No proof. Pure conjecture. Nothing more. Zimmerman gave his side. Now you want to pretend the rules don't apply because you disagree with his decision morally." b5 #204

You may want to let your parole officer know your Thorazine dose may need a substantial increase.

"Prove it"?

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

TM was alive AND TM & Z had not reached arm's length when Z implied his compliance w/ Sanford police dispatch guidance.

We KNOW that TM ran AWAY from Z, because Z said so.

AND !!

We know Z locomoted to TM, because Z confessed to that as well.

"No proof. Pure conjecture. Nothing more. Zimmerman gave his side. Now you want to pretend the rules don't apply because you disagree with his decision morally." b5 #204

Excellent!
What other possible explanation is there, that fits the familiar profiles of the two primaries in this case?

 

[blackjack50]

You assert Z said so. You are factually WRONG!!

I've reviewed the entire Sanford police transcript from start to finish. I've posted it in this thread.

I quote the transcript:

BUT !!

The assertion I was refuting was:

I just did a character string search for the string: "lawn".
It's not in there.

And even in Sanford Florida there's no legal obligation to walk at night outdoors blindfolded.
If you want to look in a window WHILE WALKING, it might be mildly unethical.
But even if guilty, not worthy of summary execution.

And if residents don't want people looking into their window they can draw the window blinds. You're fussing about trivia here. When I don't want people to look, I draw the blinds. What's the problem?

Wow. So how would you feel if I walked up to your windows on your lawn and started looking in in the dark? Not just glancing or staring...but actively looking in blinds or not? Again. If you want to introduce the circumstantial evidence...the area had experienced break ins. Zimmerman was out because of that. Trayvon went out for the ingredients to Lean. Something his Facebook made clear he was not only aware of...but a user of. His texts made it clear he knew had to fight and he believed himself a tough guy. He was suspended from school...and there was a reason he was at his father's girlfriend's house. And it wasn't for GOOD behavior.

So you can add all this up all you want...but it doesn't depict Trayvon as a sweet little boy going to the candy store mowed down by someone mustached Hispanic vigilante racist kkk hood wearing wacko who stalked him creeping from bush to bush planning out his nefarious deed against this poor little black boy. Not at all. But that is the story you have to convey to try and garner sympathy. Because emotion and appeals to morality is the only way you can try to claim Zimmerman was racist murderer.

T was out after dark going to 7-11 in the rain. Even unbeknownst to him...the area he was in had been burglarized twice in the recent past. And Z was a concerned citizen who was convinced these people would be back because they had already done so twice without being caught. T is wearing a hoodie and plenty big enough to be considered a man. He is looking into houses at night in the rain. Z being familiar with the history of the area...called police. And when he was convinced that one more break in was going to get away unsolved...he exited his vehicle...STUPIDLY...while on the phone with the police to observe and report where the "suspect" went. He headed back to his truck when he told the cops where to meet him.

For some reason Trayvon had 4 minutes to get home...and couldn't manage that. Seems to me like Trayvon didn't try. He turned around. 75 yards from his door. And he didn't run?

You can't morally break the law. And you can't show that Zimmerman lied.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[blackjack50]

This thread is sadly further proof of why every cop or lawyer would tell you that if you have to ask in self-defense you better just kill the other person.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jaeger19]

HIS TESTIMONY AND THAT OF THE WITNESS WHO SAW HIM ON BOTTOM!!! There is no other evidence. You can't disprove his story. That's how it works. Clearly. As the jury found him 'not guilty.'

So.. in other words.. HE HAS NO EVIDENCE that he was not the aggressor. Which ACCORDING TO THE LAW.. I DON"T HAVE TO DISPROVE HIS STORY.. HE HAS TO PROVE HIS STORY. HE HAS TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE...

That's the LAW.. its been given to you. You refuse to acknowledge the fact that he has to provide evidence that he was not the aggressor.

And as you admit.. all he has is word.

Now. prosecution DOES NOT HAVE TO "disprove his word"... not under the law in self defense.

However.. not only does Zimmerman not provide evidence other than his word that he was not the aggressor.. we actually have evidence that suggests to the contrary. Zimmerman got out of his car. Zimmerman told the dispatcher that he was pursuing martin. Zimmerman also gave evidence of his state of mind toward Martin in that

"these a-holes. They always get away.

Dispatch.. "are you following him"

Zimmerman "yeah".

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/326700/pages/full-transcript-zimmerman-p2-normal.gif

Clearly he had intent to follow martin and referred to him as an A hole that he wished wouldn;t get away.


So now, not only have you managed to establish that Zimmerman has no evidence that he was not the aggressor but instead was attacked (other than his word).. we also have a transcript of his own words that show that he was following martin and he viewed him as a a hole that was "getting away".

Sorry.. the idea that Zimmerman was attacked is simply not supported by the evidence.

So now that that's out.. please provide the evidence that he was in imminent threat of death or grave injury.

 

[sear]

"Wow. So how would you feel if I walked up to your windows on your lawn and started looking in in the dark? Not just glancing or staring...but actively looking in blinds or not?" b5

a) I'm not aware that TM was accused of that in this case. There's no mention of it in the Sanford police transcript.

b) I sincerely appreciate your effort. But I'll have to modify your hypothetical; for I live in a concrete and steel tower in the forest. Anyone that wants to look into my lowest windows would have to be over 13' tall, or have a ladder. My tower is on an estate that's hundreds of acres inside the Adirondack Park of New York State.
So let us substitute the scenario that I lived in the housing complex TM was shot in. OK?

In that case, I'd draw the blinds.
I've lived in such housing before, both military quarters, and government subsidized housing.
One of the first things I did was to hang a bed sheet across the window. And the land-lady made me fix it, as it was hung from a cord that drooped.
She wanted it straight, so I bought some electrical conduit, and draped the sheet over that.

It's a public access walkway. Residents would have to be BUFFOONS !! to expect privacy with an unblinded window, with such a walkway outside.

"it doesn't depict Trayvon as a sweet little boy going to the candy store mowed down by someone mustached Hispanic vigilante racist kkk hood wearing wacko who stalked him creeping from bush to bush planning out his nefarious deed against this poor little black boy. Not at all."

Pretty much.
I'll dodge you "sweet little boy" issue. For even if evil incarnate, forcing a confrontation and shooting him dead is not appropriate. Z sighted, fixated on, night-stalked, confronted, and committed homicide that night. What did TM do? Tried to get home to his Dad? I wouldn't have thought that a capital offense.

"Because emotion and appeals to morality is the only way you can try to claim Zimmerman was racist murderer."

A racist is a person that makes racial distinctions.
Z made several racial distinctions, including calling TM Black twice, and an "asshole" as well. Based on WHAT ?!

"T was out after dark going to 7-11 in the rain."

An unmistakable indication of felonious guilt!

"Even unbeknownst to him...the area he was in had been burglarized twice in the recent past."

I don't know whether TM knew or not. But at his age, I'd not have been likely to allow that to alter my behavior pattern. If he had the $money, he could go buy some. I gather the CSI determined TM paid for what he'd bought.

"And Z was a concerned citizen who was convinced these people would be back because they had already done so twice without being caught."

- dandy -
Z was not fit for the role.
Z reportedly applied for police work, and was rejected.
Z violated multiple Neighborhood Watch conventions.
Z was simply being a vigilante, and OBVIOUSLY an extremely bad one.

"T is wearing a hoodie and plenty big enough to be considered a man."

I'm a man. Of what am I guilty?

"He is looking into houses at night in the rain."

The law does not amplify the guilt under condition of meteorological precipitation.
And I'm not aware of any statistical support for the notion that more burglaries occur during rain. I'd welcome you to share that data.

"And you can't show that Zimmerman lied."

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

Z was trying to close & confront.
The Sanford police operator figured that out, and tried to stop it.

Z fed the police dispatch operator a message indicating his compliance. That's what "OK" means in that context.

But Z continued as he'd intended, forced a confrontation, and now TM is feeding worms.

You can consider that not a lie if you like. I consider it a deliberate deception. That's NOT a lie?!
If Z had said:
"$#@! you! I'm going to continue to night-stalk this little nigger anyways! And there isn't a god damned thing you can do about it !!!"
Then I would concede that Z may not have lied.

But considering what Z fed 911, I wouldn't invest a whole lot of effort trying to portray Z as honest.

 

[blackjack50]

So.. in other words.. HE HAS NO EVIDENCE that he was not the aggressor. Which ACCORDING TO THE LAW.. I DON"T HAVE TO DISPROVE HIS STORY.. HE HAS TO PROVE HIS STORY. HE HAS TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE...

That's the LAW.. its been given to you. You refuse to acknowledge the fact that he has to provide evidence that he was not the aggressor.

And as you admit.. all he has is word.

Now. prosecution DOES NOT HAVE TO "disprove his word"... not under the law in self defense.

However.. not only does Zimmerman not provide evidence other than his word that he was not the aggressor.. we actually have evidence that suggests to the contrary. Zimmerman got out of his car. Zimmerman told the dispatcher that he was pursuing martin. Zimmerman also gave evidence of his state of mind toward Martin in that

"these a-holes. They always get away.

Dispatch.. "are you following him"

Zimmerman "yeah".

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/326700/pages/full-transcript-zimmerman-p2-normal.gif

Clearly he had intent to follow martin and referred to him as an A hole that he wished wouldn;t get away.


So now, not only have you managed to establish that Zimmerman has no evidence that he was not the aggressor but instead was attacked (other than his word).. we also have a transcript of his own words that show that he was following martin and he viewed him as a a hole that was "getting away".

Sorry.. the idea that Zimmerman was attacked is simply not supported by the evidence.

So now that that's out.. please provide the evidence that he was in imminent threat of death or grave injury.

I tell you what. Let's put it to a trial...


Wooooops!!! Already done. What was the verdict?

And again. His testimony IS evidence. He has injury consistent with his claim. A witness saw him...on bottom...consistent with his claim.

This is all FACT. His testimony and the actual physical evidence was NOT enough to say that his story was wrong. Period. And this was born out by the jury's decision. Don't like it? Doesn't matter. You can have your own opinion on the matter. You can't have your own facts. Zimmerman had the only living first hand account until the witness, and all available evidence does not lend ANY proof to the contrary beyond a reasonable doubt.

As for injury:

We have been over this lunacy. Tell me what evidence of imminent threat of death or grace injury is?

Better yet. Why don't you dodge this next question:

You are knocked to your back. Someone has full mount and your nose is broke and bloody and your head is bloody in the back...would you consider yourself..."in the heat of the moment," to be at risk?

You keep trying to arm chair quarterback the injuries. Which is one more reason to maintain a loose definition on this case. Because people like you will get innocent people thrown in prison because they don't have something deemed "life threatening" even though YOU OR EVEN A MEDICAL DOCTOR...has the ability to determine if something is such "in the heat of the moment." You just cannot do it.

That's why you probably won't answer my question: would you consider yourself at risk knowing you are bleeding profusely from the nose and the back of the head?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[blackjack50]

a) I'm not aware that TM was accused of that in this case. There's no mention of it in the Sanford police transcript.

b) I sincerely appreciate your effort. But I'll have to modify your hypothetical; for I live in a concrete and steel tower in the forest. Anyone that wants to look into my lowest windows would have to be over 13' tall, or have a ladder. My tower is on an estate that's hundreds of acres inside the Adirondack Park of New York State.
So let us substitute the scenario that I lived in the housing complex TM was shot in. OK?

In that case, I'd draw the blinds.
I've lived in such housing before, both military quarters, and government subsidized housing.
One of the first things I did was to hang a bed sheet across the window. And the land-lady made me fix it, as it was hung from a cord that drooped.
She wanted it straight, so I bought some electrical conduit, and draped the sheet over that.

It's a public access walkway. Residents would have to be BUFFOONS !! to expect privacy with an unblinded window, with such a walkway outside.

Pretty much.
I'll dodge you "sweet little boy" issue. For even if evil incarnate, forcing a confrontation and shooting him dead is not appropriate. Z sighted, fixated on, night-stalked, confronted, and committed homicide that night. What did TM do? Tried to get home to his Dad? I wouldn't have thought that a capital offense.

A racist is a person that makes racial distinctions.
Z made several racial distinctions, including calling TM Black twice, and an "asshole" as well. Based on WHAT ?!

An unmistakable indication of felonious guilt!

I don't know whether TM knew or not. But at his age, I'd not have been likely to allow that to alter my behavior pattern. If he had the $money, he could go buy some. I gather the CSI determined TM paid for what he'd bought.

- dandy -
Z was not fit for the role.
Z reportedly applied for police work, and was rejected.
Z violated multiple Neighborhood Watch conventions.
Z was simply being a vigilante, and OBVIOUSLY an extremely bad one.

I'm a man. Of what am I guilty?

The law does not amplify the guilt under condition of meteorological precipitation.
And I'm not aware of any statistical support for the notion that more burglaries occur during rain. I'd welcome you to share that data.

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

Z was trying to close & confront.
The Sanford police operator figured that out, and tried to stop it.

Z fed the police dispatch operator a message indicating his compliance. That's what "OK" means in that context.

But Z continued as he'd intended, forced a confrontation, and now TM is feeding worms.

You can consider that not a lie if you like. I consider it a deliberate deception. That's NOT a lie?!
If Z had said:
"$#@! you! I'm going to continue to night-stalk this little nigger anyways! And there isn't a god damned thing you can do about it !!!"
Then I would concede that Z may not have lied.

But considering what Z fed 911, I wouldn't invest a whole lot of effort trying to portray Z as honest.

Ok. We have to address these 1 at a time now so that you understand what is going on.

Simple question:

Can you show me SPECIFICALLY which law Zimmerman's stalking charge would fall under? This is the charge YOU are alleging. Not one that actually was charged as none was demonstrated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Vox]

Sorry.. the idea that Zimmerman was attacked is simply not supported by the evidence.

LOL!

What galaxy do YOU live in?

ALL the evidence proved that Zimmerman was attacked........his wounds, eyewitnesses, earwitnesses, forensics.......even Martin's fat, crazy girlfriend said the screaming MIGHT have been Martin, but she, obviously on Martin's side, wouldn't say it was him.

That's why Zimmerman was exonerated.

Get serious.

Really.

:ind:

 

[Puigb]

LOL!

What galaxy do YOU live in?

ALL the evidence proved that Zimmerman was attacked........his wounds, eyewitnesses, earwitnesses, forensics.......even Martin's fat, crazy girlfriend said the screaming MIGHT have been Martin, but she, obviously on Martin's side, wouldn't say it was him.

That's why Zimmerman was exonerated.

Get serious.

Really.

:ind:

https://www.instagram.com/p/g5oz_tGhRa/

 

[sear]

"Can you show me SPECIFICALLY which law Zimmerman's stalking charge would fall under?
This is the charge YOU are alleging." b5 #211

I don't recall ever having asserted Z should be, or should have been charged with stalking.

I believe it is you, not me that has introduced the word "charge" in this context. Please do not pin such allegation as "charge" on me.
It is not illegal for me to use the word "stalk" as an accurately descriptive verb. Are you alleging that I have used this verb incorrectly *?

Know it or not, believe it or not, like it or not, admit it or not; this thread, this topic, is about CONDUCT!!
That means DOING something.

And that means we need a verb to express which particular conduct we're addressing.
Some of what Z did that night:
- Z got dressed
- Z armed himself, with a handgun I imagine
- Z operated his automobile to a housing complex
- Z noticed and fixated on TM
- Z called Sanford police dispatch
- Z described his reason/s
- etc.

It's virtually impossible to discuss this intelligently unless we specify which particular conduct we're analyzing.

So!! With benefit of dictionary and various statutes, I've provided DEFINITIONS along the way; as I am quite prone to do (I cite definitions by quotation more than any other poster at this site or any other, that I've ever known, and I've been at it since the previous millennium).

And I am using the verb "stalk" correctly here.
& btw, I quoted 18 USC § 2261A. Whether that's the correct stalking law IF Z were to be charged may be relevant, but not pivotal.
For if that is not the stalking statute that applies, the definition of the one I posted should be similar, if not parallel to the one that is.

I posted it not as a certitude that that's the law that applies.
I posted it because that's the DEFINITION which exists in our coded law. And sometimes a dictionary definition can vary from a legal definition.

* stalk2
[stawk]
verb (used without object)
1.
to pursue or approach prey, quarry, etc., stealthily.
3.
to proceed in a steady, deliberate, or sinister manner:
Famine stalked through the nation.
5.
to pursue (game, a person, etc.) stealthily.
6.
to proceed through (an area) in search of prey or quarry:
to stalk the woods for game.
7.
to proceed or spread through in a steady or sinister manner:
Disease stalked the land.

Stalk | Define Stalk at Dictionary.com

I know of no rule or law which would indicate I have misused, or abused this word. It accurately describes Z's conduct WHICH HE CONFESSED TO SANFORD POLICE DISPATCH!!

Please do not infer what I did not imply.
I'm not asserting Z should not have been charged with the lesser charge of stalking.
What I am instead doing is acknowledging whether Z is charged or not, it is what he did, period! "Words mean things." Rush Limbaugh

If you don't wish to interact with someone that uses the language correctly, you'll have to exchange with someone else.

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

 

[blackjack50]

I don't recall ever having asserted Z should be, or should have been charged with stalking.

I believe it is you, not me that has introduced the word "charge" in this context. Please do not pin such allegation as "charge" on me.
It is not illegal for me to use the word "stalk" as an accurately descriptive verb. Are you alleging that I have used this verb incorrectly *?

Know it or not, believe it or not, like it or not, admit it or not; this thread, this topic, is about CONDUCT!!
That means DOING something.

And that means we need a verb to express which particular conduct we're addressing.
Some of what Z did that night:
- Z got dressed
- Z armed himself, with a handgun I imagine
- Z operated his automobile to a housing complex
- Z noticed and fixated on TM
- Z called Sanford police dispatch
- Z described his reason/s
- etc.

It's virtually impossible to discuss this intelligently unless we specify which particular conduct we're analyzing.

So!! With benefit of dictionary and various statutes, I've provided DEFINITIONS along the way; as I am quite prone to do (I cite definitions by quotation more than any other poster at this site or any other, that I've ever known, and I've been at it since the previous millennium).

And I am using the verb "stalk" correctly here.
& btw, I quoted 18 USC § 2261A. Whether that's the correct stalking law IF Z were to be charged may be relevant, but not pivotal.
For if that is not the stalking statute that applies, the definition of the one I posted should be similar, if not parallel to the one that is.

I posted it not as a certitude that that's the law that applies.
I posted it because that's the DEFINITION which exists in our coded law. And sometimes a dictionary definition can vary from a legal definition.

I know of no rule or law which would indicate I have misused, or abused this word. It accurately describes Z's conduct WHICH HE CONFESSED TO SANFORD POLICE DISPATCH!!

Please do not infer what I did not imply.
I'm not asserting Z should not have been charged with the lesser charge of stalking.
What I am instead doing is acknowledging whether Z is charged or not, it is what he did, period! "Words mean things." Rush Limbaugh

If you don't wish to interact with someone that uses the language correctly, you'll have to exchange with someone else.

This is all a fancy way of YOU trying to avoid some very basic facts here:

For ANYthing to be "night-stalking" it must pass TWO independent tests.

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

Which was FALSE. Period. It does not fit that statute. Now you want to dance around this. But it DOES not. So now you are left trying to define this some other way with some other "parallel law."

In order for this to "pass the test," you need to show what parallel law that YOU are using to define Zimmerman as stalking on. You failed to do so. Your source failed. Because the only other applicable law in this case...state of Florida...requires repeated offense. That does not measure up in this case.

Are you willing to admit NOW that Zimmerman did not commit an act of stalking as far as the law is concerned?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sear]

"Which was FALSE. Period. It does not fit that statute." b5

Excellent!

YOU pick the law you prefer, be it statute, ordinance, edict, or other.
Then we can compare that DEFINITION to Z's conduct.

"Now you want to dance around this." b5

I've studied this case in detail.
I introduced the Sanford police telephone transcript here.
I introduced an updated projection of the pedestrian paths of Z & TM.

This is a recreational board.
This is a recreational thread.
No one is holding a loaded gun to my head.
I have no coercion or compulsion to exceed my comfort level here.
Not only have I provided more definitions, more references in this thread than any other poster.
I may have posted more of them than all other posters combined (not sure; please double check me. Count them all, from page #1).

And perhaps most basic of all, I don't like to dance.

"But it DOES not. So now you are left trying to define this some other way with some other "parallel law.""

It's a definition.
If you don't like it, post your own.

"In order for this to "pass the test," you need to show what parallel law that YOU are using to define Zimmerman as stalking on."

I don't have to prove that.
If it was some vast, complicated, incomprehensible reality that none but genius level CSI could understand, I might have some such compulsion.

But it's a short declarative sentence. Zimmerman night-stalked Martin. Period!
With facts that concise, defining terms ought not be necessary. It's English. Though any term in that four word sentence may have special technical definition, it's immaterial. Ignore that, and the sentence is still valid.

"Are you willing to admit NOW that Zimmerman did not commit an act of stalking as far as the law is concerned?"

I never asserted otherwise.

I used the verb correctly. I never asserted "Zimmerman committed an act of stalking" in your wording.
Z stalked TM at night, and I've acknowledged it countless times in this thread.

NO
BODY
has proved me wrong.
And they never will.
Because Z night-stalked TM. Have a nice day.

 

[Thoreau72]

Zimmerman was looking for trouble and it found him. His trigger finger was itching, and he scratched it.

 

[Vox]

Zimmerman was looking for trouble and it found him. His trigger finger was itching, and he scratched it.

And, WELL DONE, George.

One less dangerous thug made the world a better place.

:ind:

 

[Vox]

I've studied this case in detail.
I introduced the Sanford police telephone transcript here.
I introduced an updated projection of the pedestrian paths of Z & TM.

And you still can't figure out that Zimmerman did a fine job as a neighborhood watch captain?

Still hasn't dawned on you that one less thug = a better world?

Amazing.

:ind:

 

[Vox]

And why all the whining about stalking?

If stalking means to observe, track and keep a suspect in sight to assist a police investigation of that suspect.......Well, then a Neighborhood Watch Captain is doing a FINE job by doing exactly that.

This is so elementary as to defy any contradictory notions.

:ind:

 

[Excon]

Zimmerman was looking for trouble and it found him. His trigger finger was itching, and he scratched it.

Wrong as usual.

Trayvon was the one who went looking for trouble.
It was Zimmerman who showed restraint by not shooting Trayvon for repeatably slamming his head into the ground.

 

[Excon]

He quoted an interstate stalking charge! Lmao!

Yeah, really doesn't matter which statute he provides.
None fit.
None of them equate simply following for purposes of pointing out the suspicious person to police (a legal activity) as stalking.

 

[sear]

T7 #217
Thank you.

"And you still can't figure out that Zimmerman did a fine job as a neighborhood watch captain?" V #219

If it were true I would think so.
It never was.
Don't take my word for it. Download and read the Neighborhood Watch manual: http://www.usaonwatch.org/
What those that do will find is that Z violated multiple Neighborhood Watch standards.

- Z was armed with a deadly weapon, a firearm. That's an NW violation.

- Z was alone. Neighborhood Watch patrols are supposed to be composed of groups. An additional Neighborhood Watch violation.

If you wish to call Zimmerman a trigger-happy vigilante, a thug; that's fine. You'll get no argument from me about it.
But to refer to Zimmerman as having done "a fine job as a neighborhood watch captain" is not merely false; whether out of ignorance, or a deliberate lie.
It is simply not true, as the NW.org manual clearly states. Don't take my word for it. READ IT !!

"Zimmerman did a fine job as a neighborhood watch captain?" V #219

Z night-stalked and shot dead a school boy walking to his father, from a candy store. And that's what you call:

"a fine job as a neighborhood watch captain?" V #219

How terribly sad that you're not joking.

"Still hasn't dawned on you that one less thug = a better world?" V #219

It's the armed thug that survived.
It's the unarmed school boy that died.

"Amazing." V #219

Clearly.
But not in the way you think.

"And why all the whining about stalking?" V #220

THANK YOU !

 

[sear]

PS

"None of them equate simply following for purposes of pointing out the suspicious person to police (a legal activity) as stalking." E #222

"Purpose" is speculation.

Rather than speculating on shoulda / woulda / coulda, let's confine it to what actually happened. Z night-stalked TM, forced a confrontation in violation of both Sanford police dispatch guidance, and Neighborhood Watch published standards, allowed the confrontation to become physical, and then Z shot the school boy dead.

You portraying Z as an inert observer is beyond laughable! Even Z doesn't deny he shot the boy.

 

[jaeger19]

I tell you what. Let's put it to a trial...


Wooooops!!! Already done. What was the verdict?

Right.. in other words you cannot argue the points I made regarding the lack of evidence that Zimmerman was attacked and was not the aggressor. The evidence ACTUALLY suggests that Zimmerman was the aggressor. He followed Martin.. got out of his car and followed martin... and we know his state of mind and intent.. which was that "these a holes always get away"..

And again. His testimony IS evidence. He has injury consistent with his claim. A witness saw him...on bottom...consistent with his claim.

No.. that's the irony.. his injury is not consistent with his claim. First.. it offers no evidence that Martin attacked him.. the evidence actually suggests strongly that Zimmerman was the aggressor.

The injury is not consistent with any blows or force that would be sufficient to make one.. especially a person that has trained MMA for over a year.. that they were in imminent danger of death. The medical professional declared his injuries insignificant.

All his injury is evidence is that he got into a scrap. THATS IT. It certainly is not evidence that he needed to use deadly force. Under the law.. you have to reasonably believe that you are in imminent threat of death or injury AND you generally cannot be the aggressor

We have been over this lunacy. Tell me what evidence of imminent threat of death or grace injury is?

We have.. I already discussed this. Evidence of immediate death or grave injury in unarmed combat? Broken teeth.. eyes swollen, sever facial bruising, facial edema, lacerated cheekbones, broken nose.. etc.

None of those things are life threatening.. NONE.. AND even then.. most people suffer those blows and NEVER end up in imminent death or injury. In fact.. such injuries are common place in a knockdown drag out fight.. and again.. those fights don't end up in death.

So.. I am giving a person the benefit of the doubt that a person MIGHT reasonably believe they were in imminent danger of death or grave serious injury.. from such blows. Especially if they were untrained and had had no experience in fighting.. (Unlike Zimmerman by the way).

ZIMMERMAN DIDN"T EVEN EXHIBIT THESE INJURIES!!!

and on top of that.. he was trained and experienced enough to know that he was not in danger.. even if he HAD been suffering such injuries.

Better yet. Why don't you dodge this next question:

You are knocked to your back. Someone has full mount and your nose is broke and bloody and your head is bloody in the back...would you consider yourself..."in the heat of the moment," to be at risk?

Dodge it? HAH..

At risk? Certainly. I have a good chance of getting punched. At risk of IMMINENT DEATH? OR GRAVE SERIOUS INJURY? NO WAY NO HOW. There is no "heat of the moment".. I am a TRAINED MARTIAL ARTIST. I CAN FIGHT OFF MY BACK., NO WAY.. am I justified in killing a person simply because I am on my back and have been punched. ITS ABSURD TO THINK SO..

and particularly if I outweigh my attacker by several pounds. That I know that police are on their way.

Because people like you will get innocent people thrown in prison because they don't have something deemed "life threatening" even though YOU OR EVEN A MEDICAL DOCTOR...has the ability to determine if something is such "in the heat of the moment." You just cannot do it.

Actually.. I am using the law and evidence. Because of people like you.. innocent people will GET KILLED.. and get no justice.. because of your complete lack of understanding of the law and the evidence. And then what happens? People start clamoring for things like gun control because a few absolute morons use a firearm incorrectly.. kill someone without justification.. and then people like you defend them despite them being completely unjustified. So then responsible people like ME.. have to suffer because of the absurd actions of a few and the people that defend their actions.

Zimmermans actions were unjustified and criminal. And to declare that somehow they were justified portrays gun owners and people that believe in actual self defense in a very bad light.

That's why you probably won't answer my question: would you consider yourself at risk knowing you are bleeding profusely from the nose and the back of the head?

RISK OF IMMINENT DEATH? OF IMMINENT GRAVE INJURY? (I notice that suddenly you have changed from risk of death.. which IS THE STANDARD UNDER THE LAW,,. to now just "risk")

ABSOLUTELY FRIGGIN NOT. Cripes man.. I HAVE BEEN IN THAT POSITION.

As I am quite sure that Zimmerman had been with a year of MMA training 3 x week.