• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Michael Moore says Martin has right to kill Zimmerman [W: 264]

...Neither the legal definition of the crime of Stalking, or the general definitions of stalking...

GZ's actions clearly qualify under the general definitions of stalking.

You have been shown this ad nauseum, yet you simply refuse to accept the truth.
 
Wrong!
He knew he was being observed and followed.

The definition do not fit.
Neither the legal definition of the crime of Stalking, or the general definitions of stalking.
Really? Is that what you call it? Do you have children? If some guy is following your children in the shadows for an extended period of time, do you so generously call it mere observation and following? Lord...are you SO invested in one guy being the bad guy that you will completely sacrifice your own personal integrity or would you TRULY be so nonchalant about a stranger stalking someone you love and care about?
 
GZ's actions clearly qualify under the general definitions of stalking.

You have been shown this ad nauseum, yet you simply refuse to accept the truth.
Wrong!
You have been shown over and over again.

They do not apply.

Lets show everybody just how wrong you are, AGAIN!



To track prey or quarry.
v.tr.
1. To pursue by tracking stealthily.
2. To follow or observe (a person) persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement.

to pursue or approach prey, quarry, etc., stealthily.
2. to walk with measured, stiff, or haughty strides: He was so angry he stalked away without saying goodbye.
3. to proceed in a steady, deliberate, or sinister manner: Famine stalked through the nation.
4. Obsolete . to walk or go stealthily along.
verb (used with object)
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.

1. to follow or approach (game, prey, etc) stealthily and quietly
2. to pursue persistently and, sometimes, attack
And you are still wrong!




For some reason thunder does not understand that the definitions do not fit Zimmerman's action of following.


So now we have to go through each specific definition to show that he is wrong, even thought he will not admit he was wrong.

And notice how he conveniently left the source out of his post.
I believe it is the following link.
definition of stalk by the Free Online Dictionary
But, it doesn't matter.




There is nothing to indicate that Zimmerman was trying to follow Trayvon in a stealthy manner.
Nor was Trayvon prey or quarry.
And pursue means to "Follow (someone or something) to catch or attack them.", and we all know that Zimmerman's intent was not to catch Trayvon or attack him.
So any definitions with such can be disregarded at the get, because they just are not applicable.

To track prey or quarry.
v.tr.
1. To pursue by tracking stealthily.

2. To follow or observe (a person) persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement.

to pursue or approach prey, quarry, etc., stealthily.
2. to walk with measured, stiff, or haughty strides: He was so angry he stalked away without saying goodbye.
3. to proceed in a steady, deliberate, or sinister manner: Famine stalked through the nation.
4. Obsolete . to walk or go stealthily along.
verb (used with object)
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.

1. to follow or approach (game, prey, etc) stealthily and quietly
2. to pursue persistently and, sometimes, attack


All that leaves us with is the following.
2. To follow or observe (a person) persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement.
2. to walk with measured, stiff, or haughty strides: He was so angry he stalked away without saying goodbye.
3. to proceed in a steady, deliberate, or sinister manner: Famine stalked through the nation.
4. Obsolete . to walk or go stealthily along.
verb (used with object)
7. to proceed or spread through in a steady or sinister manner: Disease stalked the land.


Since def 4 is obsolete and includes stealth, it is also tossed.
Def.s 3 and 7 are basically the same, and Zimmerman's actions were far removed from being similar to famine or disease stalking the land.
It apparently could be suited to describing an indiscriminate serial killer. But since most serial killers are not indiscriminate, most likely not.
So they also get tossed as not being applicable.

So what does that leave us with?

Oh yes, the two two's. Or is that tutu? lol
2. To follow or observe (a person) persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement.
2. to walk with measured, stiff, or haughty strides: He was so angry he stalked away without saying goodbye.


Now it should be obvious to anybody, by the example given in the second (two) that their was no walking being done, or reported as being done in such a manner. And is quite a ridiculous assertion.
So "to walk with measured, stiff, or haughty strides: He was so angry he stalked away without saying goodbye." is shown to not be applicable and gets tossed.


So all that leaves us with is the first of the Two's.

Which is the one the really comes the closest, yet, no cigar.

2. To follow or observe (a person) persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement.


This is obviously defining what is normally considered stalking and is a portion that is used to describe the crime of stalking.
The "persistently" of it is what is at issue here.
The short period of time involved in Zimmerman's singular act of following can not be considered persistently. Especially since he stopped following at one point during that short time period. Which actually shows that there was no "persistently" to his following.
So it also gets shown to not be applicable.

So in the end, what do we have left?

To track prey or quarry.
v.tr.
1. To pursue by tracking stealthily.
2. To follow or observe (a person) persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement.

to pursue or approach prey, quarry, etc., stealthily.
2. to walk with measured, stiff, or haughty strides: He was so angry he stalked away without saying goodbye.
3. to proceed in a steady, deliberate, or sinister manner: Famine stalked through the nation.
4. Obsolete . to walk or go stealthily along.
verb (used with object)
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.

1. to follow or approach (game, prey, etc) stealthily and quietly
2. to pursue persistently and, sometimes, attack


What does that leave us with?
Double take.

Nothing?

It leaves us with nothing!
Nothing that Thunder provided is left. Nothing is applicable.
Go figure, huh?​
 
Where is the evidence otherwise? Now...evidence aside...it is dark and you fear you are being stalked by an unknown person (and it turns out your fear is justified AND the guy happens to be armed). You REALLY want us to believe Martin didnt have a right (and reason) to be fearful, concerned, even angry?

M initiated, the confrontation and was the aggressor, which definitely triggers a duty to retreat. M did not retreat...instead M attacked Z
 
My happiness/unhappiness doesn't change the term or make it applicable.
In fact it DOES. If you are scared, upset, angry, fearful, it absolutely DOES impact how you respond. The 'term' directly applies.
 
Really? Is that what you call it? Do you have children? If some guy is following your children in the shadows for an extended period of time, do you so generously call it mere observation and following? Lord...are you SO invested in one guy being the bad guy that you will completely sacrifice your own personal integrity or would you TRULY be so nonchalant about a stranger stalking someone you love and care about?
:doh
There was no stalking! (see above post)
 
In fact it DOES. If you are scared, upset, angry, fearful, it absolutely DOES impact how you respond. The 'term' directly applies.
Wrong!
My happiness/unhappiness doesn't change the term or make it applicable.
 
M initiated, the confrontation and was the aggressor, which definitely triggers a duty to retreat. M did not retreat...instead M attacked Z
Martin was being stalked by car and on foot for an unknown period of time by an individual that was NOT a law enforcement agent or authorized to do so. He had a legitimate reason to be fearful for his life. We dont know anything more beyond that. We dont know who said what, who started what...etc. We DO know that one individual created a dangerous circumstance which resulted in the death of a 17 year old.
 
Martin was being stalked by car and on foot for an unknown period of time by an individual that was NOT a law enforcement agent or authorized to do so. He had a legitimate reason to be fearful for his life. We dont know anything more beyond that. We dont know who said what, who started what...etc.
Wrong!
There was no stalking.
Only following to keep under observation until the police that he called arrived.



We DO know that one individual created a dangerous circumstance which resulted in the death of a 17 year old.
Yes, Trayvon did create said situation.
 
Last edited:
I follow you...or maybe one of your children...on car and foot. How happy are you going to be about that? How comfortable are you going to be with it?

Being uncomfortable is NOT the issue

You can't legally justify beating the **** out of someone because the person was following you

Following someone is not sufficient provocation to employ a brutal attack
 
Wrong!
There was no stalking.
Only following to keep under observation until the police that he called arrived.



Yes, Trayvon did create said situation.
"Stalking is a term commonly used to refer to unwanted or obsessive attention by an individual or group toward another person. Stalking behaviors are related to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person or monitoring them."
 
Being uncomfortable is NOT the issue

You can't legally justify beating the **** out of someone because the person was following you

Following someone is not sufficient provocation to employ a brutal attack
Beyond the knowns, you have no idea if that is in fact what happened. No idea whatsoever.
 
"Stalking is a term commonly used to refer to unwanted or obsessive attention by an individual or group toward another person. Stalking behaviors are related to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person or monitoring them."
The general definitions were provided. None of them apply to this specific situation or Zimmerman's actions.
Go figure huh?
 
his angry state of mind is clear from the 911 tape.
He didn't sound angry to me. He sounded scared and very concerned.

And then later like he was fearing for his life as the thug was trying to murder him.
 
Last edited:
sure they do.

you just choose to feign denial.
And you are wrong.


Each definition that you inundated us with, was completely shown not to apply.


You saying they do is a lie.
 
Last edited:
Martin was being stalked by car and on foot for an unknown period of time by an individual that was NOT a law enforcement agent or authorized to do so. He had a legitimate reason to be fearful for his life. We dont know anything more beyond that. We dont know who said what, who started what...etc. We DO know that one individual created a dangerous circumstance which resulted in the death of a 17 year old.

You don't understand nor have a clue on, the principle of being "fearful for ones life"

Being "in fear" happens at a specific moment.

And the is **** about "creating a dangerous circumstance" is just a bogus theory with NO legal basis in Florida law
 
Back
Top Bottom