If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   The audio "expert" who claims it was Trayvon and not Zimmerman screaming for help on the 911 tape will not be allowed to testify at trial   (usatoday.com) divider line 687
    More: Obvious, George Zimmerman, Mark O'Mara, the weekend, jury, screaming  
•       •       •

6076 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jun 2013 at 7:47 PM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



687 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-23 07:37:36 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: ChaosStar: gimmegimme: Cataholic: orbister: Molavian: Once he assaulted Zimmerman, Martin took it to a whole new level.

What's so hard for people to understand about this?

If you're being followed around by an armed stalker, why should you wait to be attacked?What I find hard to understand is why Mr Martin is not seen by some as having any right to confront the man stalking him. Would that have been too uppity?

How do you know the person following you is armed?

When you're being stalked, you need to assume the worst because of the imminent danger.  The stalker has not identified himself to you and he's been following you for several minutes.  You don't know if the stalker wants to rape you or follow you home to rape your loved ones or if he wants to kill you...you just don't know.

If only Trayvon had been armed, he would have been able to defend himself.

Oh it's gimmegimme again with his misinformation and sensationalism. Shocking.
If the stalker has not identified himself, how is he a stalker then? He happens to be driving and or walking in the same direction as you so he's a stalker?
Face it, no matter how many times you want to try and apply the label that stalker thing just isn't going to stick. Everyone else with common sense and knowledge of the law has figured it out, why can't you?

When someone drives at the same speed as a person walks in order to stay behind him and watch where he's going and what he's doing, I believe that's one of the textbook definitions of stalking.

You're the one who keeps making these retarded leaps of "Well by YOUR definition, anyone who's moving in the same direction as you is STALKING you, so that means you must have God's permission to beat their heads into the cement, right?!", dude, stop trying to say we're the crazy ones.


That's why I plonked him.  If I did to some 17-year-old woman what Zimmy did to Martin (before the gunshot, obviously), I'd end up on one of those unpleasant lists.
 
2013-06-23 07:37:41 PM

gimmegimme: My goodness. Look at the lengths you'll go to in order to defend a man with a history of violence who stalked a teenage boy for several minutes and then shot him to death. If you have children, what will you tell them?

"Now look, children. If a strange man is following you for several minutes in a vehicle and then on foot, lay down on the ground face down with your arms outstretched and wait for the police to arrive to clear up the situation."


1. If the person is strange to me, I don't know his history, therefore his history is irrelevant.  Martin demonstrably had no prior knowledge of Zimmerman, and Zimmerman had no prior knowledge of Martin. Any argument that suggests that Martin should feel threatened because of Zimmerman's past history of violence is a lie and false on its face because Martin could not have known anything about it unless he knew Zimmerman.

2. I have children. What I have told them is that if someone you don't know is following you, you seek out someone you do know or somewhere safe, or a crowded, well-lit public place, and call the police. Defend yourself if necessary.   I have not, and will not, tell my children to either confront or attack someone who is following them, because their "Following" them is not inherently illegal, and unless they know for a fact that the person is bad, they have no reason to directly confront the stranger. Further, because they don't know the person and whether or not he or she's armed or is out to do harm, going after, confronting, or otherwise doing anything other than getting around a lot of witnesses and/or to a safe place is only putting them in more danger.

It's criminally irresponsible to advise anyone to confront someone you believe to be an aggressor, or in any way do anything but avoid them and get to a safe place. By going out of your way to confront them, you at BEST are instigating what very well could be a fatal confrontation to you because you walked right into the hands of the attacker, and at worst, could be a harmful or fatal criminal mistake because you attacked someone who wasn't intent on doing harm. You have neither a way of knowing what hteir intent is unless it is clearly communicated, nor the authority to confront someone who has not directly engaged you in a confrontation.

So, your point is?
 
2013-06-23 07:39:40 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: When someone drives at the same speed as a person walks in order to stay behind him and watch where he's going and what he's doing, I believe that's one of the textbook definitions of stalking


It may be textbook, but it isn't the legal definition of stalking.  The crime of stalking involves following someone on a repeated number of occasions for the sole and intended purpose of harassing or intimidating them.  It's very very difficult to follow someone for an entire day and have it meet that definition, much less to do so over he course of 10 minutes.
 
2013-06-23 07:39:51 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Yet you think that a few tweets and some hearsay is unshakable proof that Trayvon was a monster worthy of being executed.

Zimemrman's given three contradicting accounts of what Trayvon was doing that aroused his suspicions, and "These assholes always get away!" is not something that someone who is merely suspicious of a stranger. Zimemrman had pronounced Trayvon guilty of the break-ins and was seeking justice for them and someone to punish. There's little other rational reason that Zimmerman would have been so desperate to catch him, to the point of not simply letting the police meet with him at a specific point and go from there and even getting out of his car to continue chasing Trayvon on foot.


I do? Really? Please quote where I said that. Since Martin wasn't executed, like you hyperbolically claim, I think you'll have a hard time with that one.

Please quote these contradicting accounts you keep referencing.
Why are you fixated on a comment he made to a dispatcher when it proves nothing except his frustration with alleged law breakers getting away? Stop tilting at windmills.
Please explain how Zimmerman was desperate to catch him when he wasn't running very fast, if at all? You don't catch someone running away by speed walking after them. No, his reasoning for following Martin, as has been said at least a hundred times already, was to continue gathering information to feed to the police dispatcher on the phone. When the dispatcher told him that wasn't needed he stopped following Martin.

What other misinformation you got that I can correct you on?
 
2013-06-23 07:41:00 PM

Bravo Two: gimmegimme: My goodness. Look at the lengths you'll go to in order to defend a man with a history of violence who stalked a teenage boy for several minutes and then shot him to death. If you have children, what will you tell them?

"Now look, children. If a strange man is following you for several minutes in a vehicle and then on foot, lay down on the ground face down with your arms outstretched and wait for the police to arrive to clear up the situation."

1. If the person is strange to me, I don't know his history, therefore his history is irrelevant.  Martin demonstrably had no prior knowledge of Zimmerman, and Zimmerman had no prior knowledge of Martin. Any argument that suggests that Martin should feel threatened because of Zimmerman's past history of violence is a lie and false on its face because Martin could not have known anything about it unless he knew Zimmerman.

2. I have children. What I have told them is that if someone you don't know is following you, you seek out someone you do know or somewhere safe, or a crowded, well-lit public place, and call the police. Defend yourself if necessary.   I have not, and will not, tell my children to either confront or attack someone who is following them, because their "Following" them is not inherently illegal, and unless they know for a fact that the person is bad, they have no reason to directly confront the stranger. Further, because they don't know the person and whether or not he or she's armed or is out to do harm, going after, confronting, or otherwise doing anything other than getting around a lot of witnesses and/or to a safe place is only putting them in more danger.

It's criminally irresponsible to advise anyone to confront someone you believe to be an aggressor, or in any way do anything but avoid them and get to a safe place. By going out of your way to confront them, you at BEST are instigating what very well could be a fatal confrontation to you because you walked right into the hands of the attac ...


Hahahahaha...

"Children, people have the legal right to follow you all they want.  This is perfectly legal.  Daddy's primary goal is to keep you compliant with US and local law."

Please, just reread what you typed.  You are putting 100% responsibility on the unarmed kid and 0% on the armed stalker.  Will you tell me what Zimmy's responsibilities were as an armed citizen on patrol?  Morally and under the law?
 
2013-06-23 07:41:45 PM

gimmegimme: Do you at least acknowledge that Martin tried to get away from Zimmerman at at least one point and Zimmerman pursued him?


I neither acknowledge nor ignore this because I have no solid facts to either prove or disprove it. We have the telephone call where martin runs and Zimmerman gets out of his car, is told he doesn't need to pursue, and says "OK".  We have no evidence that he either did or didn't continue to pursue martin, or substantive evidence of the ensuing moments in time between that point and when the altercation took place.

Unless you were there, or have evidence that no one else does, you have no substantive proof of this, either, so you cannot claim conclusively that that's what happened.

As far as we know, Zimmerman immediately stopped, returned or was on the way to returning to his vehicle, and was attacked by martin. Zimmerman may also have continued to go after Martin, come across where Martin was hiding, and got into a fight that resulted in a gunshot.  We don't know. There's no evidence to clearly prove either scenario, and to believe in one over the other is emotional investment, not factual belief.
 
2013-06-23 07:46:20 PM
.

Keizer_Ghidorah: You're the one who keeps making these retarded leaps of "Well by YOUR definition, anyone who's moving in the same direction as you is STALKING you, so that means you must have God's permission to beat their heads into the cement, right?!", dude, stop trying to say we're the crazy ones.


Really? So I'm the person hyperbolically claiming, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, that by merely following Martin Zimmerman was stalking, hunting, harassing, etc him?
Sorry, I don't think you'll find that anywhere either.

I've maintained all along Zimmerman was following Martin, and as Cataholic pointed out to you

Cataholic: It may be textbook, but it isn't the legal definition of stalking. The crime of stalking involves following someone on a repeated number of occasions for the sole and intended purpose of harassing or intimidating them. It's very very difficult to follow someone for an entire day and have it meet that definition, much less to do so over he course of 10 minutes.


What else you got kiddo?
 
2013-06-23 07:48:06 PM

gimmegimme: Hahahahaha...

"Children, people have the legal right to follow you all they want. This is perfectly legal. Daddy's primary goal is to keep you compliant with US and local law."

Please, just reread what you typed. You are putting 100% responsibility on the unarmed kid and 0% on the armed stalker. Will you tell me what Zimmy's responsibilities were as an armed citizen on patrol? Morally and under the law?


"Armed stalker". How do they know the person is armed? How do they know that they are, in fact, stalking them?

I tell my kids to avoid confrontation and to get to a safe place, since they have no means of confronting or stopping a determined attacker. They're not old enough to have a gun and not big enough to do anything serious to an adult.

But, the notion that I would tell them that they can't just attack or go after someone who they don't know has done anything wrong, but instead to get to a safe place and call the cops and/or someone they know and trust, and let the person deal with the situation if there is one, is laughable to you, and illogical?

What, do you tell your children that if someone is following you they must be out to rape or kill you so you have to do everything you can to get them first? That seems...criminally irresponsible to me.

Oh well, you have yet to demonstrate that you are anything but hysterical when it comes to anyone who might possibly be out to get you, and believe that everyone should view potential threats in an equally hysterical method. I truly pity you and your life where such fear and constant doubt is necessary.

Where I come from, as an adult, if someone's coming after me casually or is following me, I tend to just stop and ask them what the hell they want. No running, no attacking, no assumptions.  As a kid, we just got somewhere safe with lots of adults and made sure we had a LOT of eyeballs that could see someone trying to do something bad, since most people in town wouldn't take too kindly to someone trying to go after a running, screaming child.
 
2013-06-23 07:48:45 PM

Bravo Two: gimmegimme: Do you at least acknowledge that Martin tried to get away from Zimmerman at at least one point and Zimmerman pursued him?

I neither acknowledge nor ignore this because I have no solid facts to either prove or disprove it. We have the telephone call where martin runs and Zimmerman gets out of his car, is told he doesn't need to pursue, and says "OK".  We have no evidence that he either did or didn't continue to pursue martin, or substantive evidence of the ensuing moments in time between that point and when the altercation took place.

Unless you were there, or have evidence that no one else does, you have no substantive proof of this, either, so you cannot claim conclusively that that's what happened.

As far as we know, Zimmerman immediately stopped, returned or was on the way to returning to his vehicle, and was attacked by martin. Zimmerman may also have continued to go after Martin, come across where Martin was hiding, and got into a fight that resulted in a gunshot.  We don't know. There's no evidence to clearly prove either scenario, and to believe in one over the other is emotional investment, not factual belief.


It's amazing how you've turned it around on Martin.  The armed fake policeman was just walking around between houses, thinking about which Golden Girl he most wanted to bang when he was a kid.  Then all of a sudden, the unarmed teenager ATTACKED OUTTA NOWHERE.

Amazing.
 
2013-06-23 07:50:33 PM

gimmegimme: Bravo Two: gimmegimme: Do you at least acknowledge that Martin tried to get away from Zimmerman at at least one point and Zimmerman pursued him?

I neither acknowledge nor ignore this because I have no solid facts to either prove or disprove it. We have the telephone call where martin runs and Zimmerman gets out of his car, is told he doesn't need to pursue, and says "OK".  We have no evidence that he either did or didn't continue to pursue martin, or substantive evidence of the ensuing moments in time between that point and when the altercation took place.

Unless you were there, or have evidence that no one else does, you have no substantive proof of this, either, so you cannot claim conclusively that that's what happened.

As far as we know, Zimmerman immediately stopped, returned or was on the way to returning to his vehicle, and was attacked by martin. Zimmerman may also have continued to go after Martin, come across where Martin was hiding, and got into a fight that resulted in a gunshot.  We don't know. There's no evidence to clearly prove either scenario, and to believe in one over the other is emotional investment, not factual belief.

It's amazing how you've turned it around on Martin.  The armed fake policeman was just walking around between houses, thinking about which Golden Girl he most wanted to bang when he was a kid.  Then all of a sudden, the unarmed teenager ATTACKED OUTTA NOWHERE.

Amazing.


/headdesk
The stupid, it burns..
 
2013-06-23 07:52:38 PM

Bravo Two: Where I come from, as an adult, if someone's coming after me casually or is following me, I tend to just stop and ask them what the hell they want. No running, no attacking, no assumptions. As a kid, we just got somewhere safe with lots of adults and made sure we had a LOT of eyeballs that could see someone trying to do something bad, since most people in town wouldn't take too kindly to someone trying to go after a running, screaming child.


I'm sorry to have to say this, but if you used this kind of aggressive language, you might end up with a Zimmerman Heart Attack.

What, do you tell your children that if someone is following you they must be out to rape or kill you so you have to do everything you can to get them first? That seems...criminally irresponsible to me.

ISN'T THIS THE CRUX OF ZIMMERMAN'S WHOLE DEFENSE?!?!?!
 
2013-06-23 07:55:30 PM

gimmegimme: Will you tell me what Zimmy's responsibilities were as an armed citizen on patrol? Morally and under the law?


As I missed this in my prior response, let me answer it here:

Zimmerman had the responsibility to protect himself and others, morally. If you are part of a community and see something suspicious, then I expect you, morally, to report the behavior.  How you do that is your choice, whether it's jsut calling the cops, going over and asking what the hell you're doing, or keeping an eye on you. None of the above are illegal, and are entirely at your discretion.

Having a CCW, Zimmerman was legally allowed to carry a firearm, and use his own best judgement as to what constituted a violent threat that needed to be defended against.

"on patrol" -- I'm not even sure what you mean by this. I haven't seen anything to suggest that Zimmerman was actively out trolling the neighborhood in his car looking for threats, he saw a person who was suspicious walking through the neighborhood, and chose a course of action to keep an eye on and report this person.

As I've said many times, I've done similar things, however I'm usually a lot less circumspect about it. I've been past a neighbor's place and saw a carload of people stopped in the driveway. As I knew the person was out of town, I stopped and asked what the hell they were doing and if they needed some assistance. I also recorded their license number. Yes, I did happen to be armed at the time, mostly because I generally go about armed unless I have a specific reason not to.

I know that my neighbors have done the same thing, questioning and confronting people occasionally who trespass into orchards or fields, or who seem to be out of place in our corner of the woods.  It's the normal, neighborly thing to do.

I don't understand any other way. While I agree Zimmerman may have acted above and beyond and forced Martin into a confrontation in his being overzealous, I think it's a tragic lack of judgement, more than I think it's a person out looking to kill someone.
 
2013-06-23 07:57:54 PM

gimmegimme: It's amazing how you've turned it around on Martin. The armed fake policeman was just walking around between houses, thinking about which Golden Girl he most wanted to bang when he was a kid. Then all of a sudden, the unarmed teenager ATTACKED OUTTA NOWHERE.

Amazing.


I have done nothing but stated the facts of the case as released to the public. I have no other data to present, nor any data with which to draw a conclusion. I have merely stated two possible scenarios based on the evidence that is available.

If this amazes you, and making a factual statement based on the evidence that favors no particular scenario is a foreign concept, I submit that you are letting emotion rule and are failing to adhere to logic and reason.

That, to me, is amazing.
 
2013-06-23 07:58:19 PM

ChaosStar: Keizer_Ghidorah: Yet you think that a few tweets and some hearsay is unshakable proof that Trayvon was a monster worthy of being executed.

Zimemrman's given three contradicting accounts of what Trayvon was doing that aroused his suspicions, and "These assholes always get away!" is not something that someone who is merely suspicious of a stranger. Zimemrman had pronounced Trayvon guilty of the break-ins and was seeking justice for them and someone to punish. There's little other rational reason that Zimmerman would have been so desperate to catch him, to the point of not simply letting the police meet with him at a specific point and go from there and even getting out of his car to continue chasing Trayvon on foot.

I do? Really? Please quote where I said that. Since Martin wasn't executed, like you hyperbolically claim, I think you'll have a hard time with that one.


I can point to how you keep dismissing an actual police record on Zimmerman while saying tweets and hearsay are concrete proof of Trayvon's guilt.

Please quote these contradicting accounts you keep referencing.

Looking at the moment, there's a lot of Fark and internet to search. There are at least three accounts of Trayvon's "suspicious behavior as given by Zimmerman: He was dodging between houses, he was peering into windows, and he was skipping down the street.

Why are you fixated on a comment he made to a dispatcher when it proves nothing except his frustration with alleged law breakers getting away? Stop tilting at windmills.

I said nothing about the 911 dispatcher. I said that Zimmerman was so engrossed in catching Trayvon that he couldn't be bothered to meet the police at a specific point and let them do their job.

Please explain how Zimmerman was desperate to catch him when he wasn't running very fast, if at all? You don't catch someone running away by speed walking after them. No, his reasoning for following Martin, as has been said at least a hundred times already, was to continue gathering information to feed to the police dispatcher on the phone. When the dispatcher told him that wasn't needed he stopped following Martin.

You're assuming that I meant Zimmerman was physically trying to catch him, as in take him into his arms and hold him or something. I did not say that. Chasing after someone to see where they go is still trying to catch them.

What other misinformation you got that I can correct you on?

I don't know. Maybe you can tell me why Zimmerman said "These assholes always get away!" when he went after Trayvon if it wasn't about seeking justice for the break-ins.
 
2013-06-23 07:58:52 PM

Bravo Two: gimmegimme: It's amazing how you've turned it around on Martin. The armed fake policeman was just walking around between houses, thinking about which Golden Girl he most wanted to bang when he was a kid. Then all of a sudden, the unarmed teenager ATTACKED OUTTA NOWHERE.

Amazing.

I have done nothing but stated the facts of the case as released to the public. I have no other data to present, nor any data with which to draw a conclusion. I have merely stated two possible scenarios based on the evidence that is available.

If this amazes you, and making a factual statement based on the evidence that favors no particular scenario is a foreign concept, I submit that you are letting emotion rule and are failing to adhere to logic and reason.

That, to me, is amazing.


What about this part:

What, do you tell your children that if someone is following you they must be out to rape or kill you so you have to do everything you can to get them first? That seems...criminally irresponsible to me.

ISN'T THIS THE CRUX OF ZIMMERMAN'S WHOLE DEFENSE?!?!?!
 
2013-06-23 08:02:44 PM

gimmegimme: Bravo Two: Where I come from, as an adult, if someone's coming after me casually or is following me, I tend to just stop and ask them what the hell they want. No running, no attacking, no assumptions. As a kid, we just got somewhere safe with lots of adults and made sure we had a LOT of eyeballs that could see someone trying to do something bad, since most people in town wouldn't take too kindly to someone trying to go after a running, screaming child.

I'm sorry to have to say this, but if you used this kind of aggressive language, you might end up with a Zimmerman Heart Attack.

What, do you tell your children that if someone is following you they must be out to rape or kill you so you have to do everything you can to get them first? That seems...criminally irresponsible to me.

ISN'T THIS THE CRUX OF ZIMMERMAN'S WHOLE DEFENSE?!?!?!


Yes, because "Hey there, can i help you? Are you lost?" as a general means of querying folks that are not recognized and are suspicious constitute a violent threat that might incite a violent attack.  If I am attacked for simply approaching and asking what's going on, however, then it might result in a very bad day for the person doing the attacking as I have done nothing either aggressive or to suggest a direct threat to them, merely questioned their presence.

As to the second part of your statement, as that was a sarcastic remark and not at all my position; and as, as far as I know, Zimmerman's general defense is "I was trying to figure out what was going on as we'd had break ins and he was acting suspicious and during the course of trying to figure that out I got jumped and had no other alternative but to shoot him", I don't see how that equates to stating you do everything you can to get them first. After all, had that in fact been his intent, would it not simply have made more sense for him to have found a way to just shoot him without getting his hands dirty and go to a lot of great lengths to involve police and contrive a scenario that would turn into a shooting? I don't generally give George Zimmerman much credit for being that intelligent or conniving.
 
2013-06-23 08:04:51 PM

ChaosStar: . Keizer_Ghidorah: You're the one who keeps making these retarded leaps of "Well by YOUR definition, anyone who's moving in the same direction as you is STALKING you, so that means you must have God's permission to beat their heads into the cement, right?!", dude, stop trying to say we're the crazy ones.

Really? So I'm the person hyperbolically claiming, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, that by merely following Martin Zimmerman was stalking, hunting, harassing, etc him?
Sorry, I don't think you'll find that anywhere either.

I've maintained all along Zimmerman was following Martin, and as Cataholic pointed out to you Cataholic: It may be textbook, but it isn't the legal definition of stalking. The crime of stalking involves following someone on a repeated number of occasions for the sole and intended purpose of harassing or intimidating them. It's very very difficult to follow someone for an entire day and have it meet that definition, much less to do so over he course of 10 minutes.

What else you got kiddo?


I'm probably older than you are, dude, so stop attempting to seem wiser and smarter with the "hurr hurr you just kid so I right" idiocy.

It may not meet the exact criteria, but it's still stalking, seeing as his attention was focused on one person and he was determined to see what he was doing and where he was going. And since he was certain Trayvon was responsible for the break-ins, especially as he happened to be in the vicinity of one of the houses that was broken into, he stalked and then pursued on both wheel and foot, in his determination to bring someone he felt was a criminal to justice.
 
2013-06-23 08:05:02 PM

gimmegimme: Bravo Two: gimmegimme: It's amazing how you've turned it around on Martin. The armed fake policeman was just walking around between houses, thinking about which Golden Girl he most wanted to bang when he was a kid. Then all of a sudden, the unarmed teenager ATTACKED OUTTA NOWHERE.

Amazing.

I have done nothing but stated the facts of the case as released to the public. I have no other data to present, nor any data with which to draw a conclusion. I have merely stated two possible scenarios based on the evidence that is available.

If this amazes you, and making a factual statement based on the evidence that favors no particular scenario is a foreign concept, I submit that you are letting emotion rule and are failing to adhere to logic and reason.

That, to me, is amazing.

What about this part:

What, do you tell your children that if someone is following you they must be out to rape or kill you so you have to do everything you can to get them first? That seems...criminally irresponsible to me.

ISN'T THIS THE CRUX OF ZIMMERMAN'S WHOLE DEFENSE?!?!?!


You seem...awfully wound up and invested in this trial. IS there something you're not telling us? A reason you're so emotionally distraught over the fact that people refuse to jump to conclusions as to what happened, or, more importantly, really really don't give a shiat and simply are ready to let the jury rule and be done with all of the hysterics?
 
2013-06-23 08:08:53 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: When someone drives at the same speed as a person walks in order to stay behind him and watch where he's going and what he's doing, I believe that's one of the textbook definitions of stalking.

You're the one who keeps making these retarded leaps of "Well by YOUR definition, anyone who's moving in the same direction as you is STALKING you, so that means you must have God's permission to beat their heads into the cement, right?!", dude, stop trying to say we're the crazy ones.


stalking  present participle of stalk (Verb)VerbPursue or approach stealthily: "a cat stalking a bird".Harass or persecute (someone) with unwanted and obsessive attention: "the fan stalked the actor".
Yes, it is a dictionary definition of stalking.

The legal definition of stalking is thus:

Criminal activity consisting of the repeated following and harassing of another person.

Stalking is a distinctive form of criminal activity composed of a series of actions that taken individually might constitute legal behavior. For example, sending flowers, writing love notes, and waiting for someone outside her place of work are actions that, on their own, are not criminal. When these actions are coupled with an intent to instill fear or injury, however, they may constitute a pattern of behavior that is illegal. Though anti-stalking laws are gender neutral, most stalkers are men and most victims are women.
Stalking first attracted widespread public concern when a young actress named Rebecca Shaeffer, who was living in California, was shot to death by an obsessed fan who had stalked her for two years. The case drew extensive media coverage and revealed how widespread a problem stalking was to both celebrity and noncelebrity victims. Until the enactment of anti-stalking laws, police had little power to arrest someone who behaved in a threatening but legal way. Even when the suspect had followed his victim, sent her hate mail, or behaved in a threatening manner, the police were without legal recourse. Law enforcement could not take action until the suspect acted on his threats and assaulted or injured the victim.


So, a single incident of following a person in a car to observe what they are doing is not legally considered stalking.
 
2013-06-23 08:19:41 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Zimmerman wanted justice and punishment done that night. Several break-ins had occurred previously, with the perpetrators escaping. They were described as "young black men". Zimmerman sees a young black wan walking down the street, immediately assumes that's he's responsible for the break-ins, and starts pursuing him. "These assholes always get away!" isn't a phrase someone who is merely suspicious of a stranger would use. Zimmerman had already judged and pronounced sentence on Trayvon solely because he was a young black man walking at night through a neighborhood that had experienced some trouble and he wanted someone to pay for it.

And what "suspicious activity" did Trayvon do to earn Zimmerman's wrath? Zimmerman's given three different stories: Trayvon was peering into windows; Trayvon was staring at houses; Trayvon was skipping down the street. So which was it?

Peering into windows and staring at houses, duh.

Zimmerman also has a documented history of anger and violence, assaulting an officer and beating his wife, which is a lot more substantial and concrete than Trayvon's few tweet pictures, hearsay, and lack of criminal record.


Just, no.  Let's have an earlier replay of an early point that I made:

It's curious that I've seen virtually nothing written about the fact the Martin had years of football training in his past. Not only has it been documented that he was into a culture of orchestrated fight club type fighting scenes, but his football training. i.e., violent aggression training and toughening process for full contact interaction with other large and powerful young adults, also is a major factor in understanding his willingness to initial a violent confrontation.  Don't most of you understand just how completely football drilling and training separates out athletes (especially full-contact sport athletes) from the general public?  Among other things, Martin has given the youth football programs a black eye by grossly abusing and misusing his skills, power, and strength, Zimmerman did NOT initiate the fight.  Zimmerman very well might have died had the fight continued. He was ambushed and had to defend himself with deadly force. And BTW, there was NO wrath in Zimmerman's stance that night; only frustration at repeatedly seeing douchebag thieves and punks get away with B&Es.  And now that I'm mentioning it, it's EXTREMELY HIGHLY LIKELY that Martin fell into that category, along with being a violent-sport trained bully and self-appointed scofflaw. You just keep farkin' that chicken, though.  It'll come home to roost....
 
2013-06-23 08:21:23 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: I can point to how you keep dismissing an actual police record on Zimmerman while saying tweets and hearsay are concrete proof of Trayvon's guilt.


Again, please quote where I said anything is concrete proof of Trayvon's guilt.
I don't take Zimmerman's police record as seriously as you do because I can easily see how he ended up with that record and it's really not as serious as you try to make it out to be. Furthermore I can point to evidence that the only reason Martin didn't have a criminal record was because the police department purposely filed false reports on him and other troublemakers at school downplaying events to avoid them entering the legal system. Charges of drug possession, theft, and destruction of property should have been brought against Martin but never were, all so the school could boast about a decline in student based arrests.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Looking at the moment, there's a lot of Fark and internet to search.


I'll wait

Keizer_Ghidorah: I said nothing about the 911 dispatcher. I said that Zimmerman was so engrossed in catching Trayvon that he couldn't be bothered to meet the police at a specific point and let them do their job.


I never said you said anything about the dispatcher and no, that's not what you said. You said

Keizer_Ghidorah: "These assholes always get away!" is not something that someone who is merely suspicious of a stranger.

to which I contend you're taking what he said completely out of context and probably on purpose. You have no evidence to back up any claim that he couldn't be bothered to meet the police.

Keizer_Ghidorah: You're assuming that I meant Zimmerman was physically trying to catch him, as in take him into his arms and hold him or something. I did not say that. Chasing after someone to see where they go is still trying to catch them.


Lol wut? Are you serious?

Keizer_Ghidorah: I don't know. Maybe you can tell me why Zimmerman said "These assholes always get away!" when he went after Trayvon if it wasn't about seeking justice for the break-ins.


I already have, multiple times. It was a remark made in frustration at the ability for thieves to get away due to police response times. how you get it means he was seeking justice for anything is beyond me.

Cmon, keep it coming
 
2013-06-23 08:25:21 PM

JuggleGeek: Zimmerman strapped on a gun, chased someone down at night, started a fight, shot and killed the guy he was fighting with.  I don't think he planned all that out ahead of time, but that's certainly how it ended up.

And many of you think "Oh, yeah, obviously that's self defense, nothing wrong with that".  Completely nuts.


Yes. No. No. Yes.  GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT! YEE-HAW...er...Ah mean...BRO KNUCKLES!!
 
2013-06-23 08:26:17 PM
Keizer_Ghidorah: ChaosStar: . Keizer_Ghidorah: You're the one who keeps making these retarded leaps of "Well by YOUR definition, anyone who's moving in the same direction as you is STALKING you, so that means you must have God's permission to beat their heads into the cement, right?!", dude, stop trying to say we're the crazy ones.
 
Really? So I'm the person hyperbolically claiming, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, that by merely following Martin Zimmerman was stalking, hunting, harassing, etc him?
Sorry, I don't think you'll find that anywhere either.

I've maintained all along Zimmerman was following Martin, and as Cataholic pointed out to you Cataholic: It may be textbook, but it isn't the legal definition of stalking. The crime of stalking involves following someone on a repeated number of occasions for the sole and intended purpose of harassing or intimidating them. It's very very difficult to follow someone for an entire day and have it meet that definition, much less to do so over he course of 10 minutes.

What else you got kiddo?

I'm probably older than you are, dude, so stop attempting to seem wiser and smarter with the "hurr hurr you just kid so I right" idiocy.

It may not meet the exact criteria, but it's still stalking, seeing as his attention was focused on one person and he was determined to see what he was doing and where he was going. And since he was certain Trayvon was responsible for the break-ins, especially as he happened to be in the vicinity of one of the houses that was broken into, he stalked and then pursued on both wheel and foot, in his determination to bring someone he felt was a criminal to justice.



Boss, if it doesn't meet the criteria, it's not stalking. You can't call an apple and orange and expect to not be thought of as retarded.

You're like one of those attention whore girls on *insert popular social media here* who call everyone a stalker for looking at their information more than once. Get a grip on reality man.
Citation needed for bold.
 
2013-06-23 08:28:09 PM
I feel I am fairly neutral on this case.  As an observer reading the comments of both sides I see a lot of emotion in the arguments.  But it is my opinion that the Zimmerman opponents are arguing from an emotional aspect more than the Zimmerman supporters.  The opponents of Zimmerman use words like "should have" a lot in seeming ignorance of rights by law.

ex.  "Zimmerman should have stayed in his car."  Perhaps so, but he is not required to by law.
 
2013-06-23 09:04:45 PM

Frederick: I feel I am fairly neutral on this case.  As an observer reading the comments of both sides I see a lot of emotion in the arguments.  But it is my opinion that the Zimmerman opponents are arguing from an emotional aspect more than the Zimmerman supporters.  The opponents of Zimmerman use words like "should have" a lot in seeming ignorance of rights by law.

ex.  "Zimmerman should have stayed in his car."  Perhaps so, but he is not required to by law.


Well, there's the legal aspect, and then there's whether he should have been smarter.  A lot of training in a lot of pursuits are all about not putting yourself in a situation where something bad can happen:  pack your own parachute; go through the pre-flight checklist yourself; stack your own rounds.  In the national Neighborhood Watch training materials and classes, you're told not to pursue suspects yourself.  It's not because it's illegal.  It's because the risk/reward calculus is decidedly against you, as is clearly the case here.  Zimmerman did not prevent a crime and he is now on trial to see whether he has totally ruined his own life - not because he shot someone in self-defense, but whether he should have avoided that possibility to begin with.

Was he required, by law, to stay in his car?  No.  Did he put himself in a situation where he ended up using his gun to kill someone, possibly justifiably, and possibly illegally?  Yep.  Would he have done the same thing had he not been armed?  I doubt it.  The guy was playing cop and it bit him in the ass.

I'm neutral on whether he is guilty or not.  I'm not neutral as to whether his decisions virtually every step along the way were stupid.

As for Trayvon, we know even less.  If, for example, he lay in wait to confront Zimmerman as Zim claims, that was pretty farking stupid.  Someone is following you, you'd best flee and call the cops yourself.  Don't try to turn and solve things with some dickbag with your fists because, sometimes, that dickbag has a gun, and you dun goofed.  Can I construct a scenario where Zimmerman is a murdering fark and Trayvon did nothing wrong?  You bet.  Can I construct a scenario that matches the facts and Zimmerman used his weapon in self-defense?  You bet.  Anyone who is convinced one way or another and expresses a high degree of confidence is articulating a thought-process that is alien to me.
 
2013-06-23 09:26:16 PM

Ricardo Klement: Frederick: I feel I am fairly neutral on this case.  As an observer reading the comments of both sides I see a lot of emotion in the arguments.  But it is my opinion that the Zimmerman opponents are arguing from an emotional aspect more than the Zimmerman supporters.  The opponents of Zimmerman use words like "should have" a lot in seeming ignorance of rights by law.

ex.  "Zimmerman should have stayed in his car."  Perhaps so, but he is not required to by law.

Well, there's the legal aspect, and then there's whether he should have been smarter.  A lot of training in a lot of pursuits are all about not putting yourself in a situation where something bad can happen:  pack your own parachute; go through the pre-flight checklist yourself; stack your own rounds.  In the national Neighborhood Watch training materials and classes, you're told not to pursue suspects yourself.  It's not because it's illegal.  It's because the risk/reward calculus is decidedly against you, as is clearly the case here.  Zimmerman did not prevent a crime and he is now on trial to see whether he has totally ruined his own life - not because he shot someone in self-defense, but whether he should have avoided that possibility to begin with.

Was he required, by law, to stay in his car?  No.  Did he put himself in a situation where he ended up using his gun to kill someone, possibly justifiably, and possibly illegally?  Yep.  Would he have done the same thing had he not been armed?  I doubt it.  The guy was playing cop and it bit him in the ass.

I'm neutral on whether he is guilty or not.  I'm not neutral as to whether his decisions virtually every step along the way were stupid.

As for Trayvon, we know even less.  If, for example, he lay in wait to confront Zimmerman as Zim claims, that was pretty farking stupid.  Someone is following you, you'd best flee and call the cops yourself.  Don't try to turn and solve things with some dickbag with your fists because, sometimes, that dickbag has a gun, and you dun goofed.  Can I construct a scenario where Zimmerman is a murdering fark and Trayvon did nothing wrong?  You bet.  Can I construct a scenario that matches the facts and Zimmerman used his weapon in self-defense?  You bet.  Anyone who is convinced one way or another and expresses a high degree of confidence is articulating a thought-process that is alien to me.


This.
 
2013-06-23 09:34:30 PM

Bravo Two: gimmegimme: Bravo Two: gimmegimme: It's amazing how you've turned it around on Martin. The armed fake policeman was just walking around between houses, thinking about which Golden Girl he most wanted to bang when he was a kid. Then all of a sudden, the unarmed teenager ATTACKED OUTTA NOWHERE.

Amazing.

I have done nothing but stated the facts of the case as released to the public. I have no other data to present, nor any data with which to draw a conclusion. I have merely stated two possible scenarios based on the evidence that is available.

If this amazes you, and making a factual statement based on the evidence that favors no particular scenario is a foreign concept, I submit that you are letting emotion rule and are failing to adhere to logic and reason.

That, to me, is amazing.

What about this part:

What, do you tell your children that if someone is following you they must be out to rape or kill you so you have to do everything you can to get them first? That seems...criminally irresponsible to me.

ISN'T THIS THE CRUX OF ZIMMERMAN'S WHOLE DEFENSE?!?!?!

You seem...awfully wound up and invested in this trial. IS there something you're not telling us? A reason you're so emotionally distraught over the fact that people refuse to jump to conclusions as to what happened, or, more importantly, really really don't give a shiat and simply are ready to let the jury rule and be done with all of the hysterics?


=)  I love that you replied with two posts and a few hundred words...but I'm the distraught one.

I'm just trying to understand the mindset of folks who think that Zimmy was 0% in the wrong or shouldn't have a trial or shouldn't serve any time whatsoever for causing the situation and firing the bullet that killed a kid.
 
2013-06-23 09:36:23 PM
wow, no fredklein in hours.  he was getting annoying
 
2013-06-23 10:48:32 PM

ThatDarkFellow: Trayvon was charged with 2 counts of rape in 2009


This illustrates a problem that Zimmermans supporters keep running into.  They keep having to make up lies in order to defend the killer they are calling a hero.

Here is another example.

lantawa: Zimmerman did NOT initiate the fight.


And another

ChaosStar: the only reason Martin didn't have a criminal record was because the police department purposely filed false reports on him and other troublemakers at school downplaying events to avoid them entering the legal system.


Plus, of course, posting a bunch of pictures of other people and claiming they are Martin because it helps with their "See, he's a gang thug, obviously someone needed to shoot him" story.
 
2013-06-23 10:57:33 PM

fredklein: ChaosStar: Zimmerman also has a documented history of anger and violence, assaulting an officer and beating his wife, which is a lot more substantial and concrete than Trayvon's few tweet pictures, hearsay, and lack of criminal record.

Stupid and wrong all in the same post. Congrats.
Oh and please cite source for above

In 2005, Zimmerman was charged with assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest, after shoving an officer while a friend of Zimmerman's was being questioned about underage drinking. The charges were reduced, then dropped when Zimmerman entered a pre-trial diversion program. Also in 2005, Zimmerman's ex-fiance filed a restraining order against him, alleging domestic violence.
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#George_Zimme r man


Way to leave the some fairly important sentences:

In 2005, Zimmerman was charged with assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest, after shoving an officer while a friend of Zimmerman's was being questioned about underage drinking. The charges were reduced, then dropped when Zimmerman entered a pre-trial diversion program. Also in 2005, Zimmerman's ex-fiance filed a restraining order against him, alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman requested a reciprocal restraining order. Both orders were granted. The incidents were raised by prosecutors at Zimmerman's initial bond hearing. The judge described the incidents as "run of the mill" and "somewhat mild" and rejected the prosecution's claim that the incidents showed that Zimmerman was violent or a threat to the community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#George_Zimm erm an
 
2013-06-23 11:04:41 PM

CliChe Guevara: i think he did a bit more than follow. don't be obtuse. if a darker member of the public followed you around in a car, then started chasing you on foot when you tried to duck them, then ran after you when you tried to run away


Why do you keep saying this?  Martin said that he was not going to run away.
 
2013-06-23 11:49:07 PM

fredklein: Why doesn't Trayvon, faced with an armed guy who's been following him, have a right to defend himself?


From what?  Scrutiny?
 
2013-06-24 02:16:17 AM

Nutsac_Jim: CliChe Guevara: i think he did a bit more than follow. don't be obtuse. if a darker member of the public followed you around in a car, then started chasing you on foot when you tried to duck them, then ran after you when you tried to run away

Why do you keep saying this?  Martin said that he was not going to run away.


funny, the facts seem to show he did run away. hell, listen to your hero zimmy; even -he- said martin ran away.
the cognitive dissonance of zimmerman defenders show a truly disturbing pattern. quite frankly, you people are farking disturbing.
 
2013-06-24 02:31:58 AM

CliChe Guevara: Nutsac_Jim: CliChe Guevara: i think he did a bit more than follow. don't be obtuse. if a darker member of the public followed you around in a car, then started chasing you on foot when you tried to duck them, then ran after you when you tried to run away

Why do you keep saying this?  Martin said that he was not going to run away.

funny, the facts seem to show he did run away. hell, listen to your hero zimmy; even -he- said martin ran away.
the cognitive dissonance of zimmerman defenders show a truly disturbing pattern. quite frankly, you people are farking disturbing.


Zimmerman said he ran off. Martin's girlfriend said he said he wasn't going to run. Somewhat of an impasse if you ask me.
 
2013-06-24 04:25:20 AM

JuggleGeek: ThatDarkFellow: Trayvon was charged with 2 counts of rape in 2009

This illustrates a problem that Zimmermans supporters keep running into.  They keep having to make up lies in order to defend the killer they are calling a hero.

Here is another example.

lantawa: Zimmerman did NOT initiate the fight.

And another

ChaosStar: the only reason Martin didn't have a criminal record was because the police department purposely filed false reports on him and other troublemakers at school downplaying events to avoid them entering the legal system.

Plus, of course, posting a bunch of pictures of other people and claiming they are Martin because it helps with their "See, he's a gang thug, obviously someone needed to shoot him" story.


He's the hero we deserve, but not the one we need
 
2013-06-24 06:08:36 AM

JuggleGeek: ThatDarkFellow: Trayvon was charged with 2 counts of rape in 2009

This illustrates a problem that Zimmermans supporters keep running into.  They keep having to make up lies in order to defend the killer they are calling a hero.

Here is another example.

lantawa: Zimmerman did NOT initiate the fight.

And another

ChaosStar: the only reason Martin didn't have a criminal record was because the police department purposely filed false reports on him and other troublemakers at school downplaying events to avoid them entering the legal system.

Plus, of course, posting a bunch of pictures of other people and claiming they are Martin because it helps with their "See, he's a gang thug, obviously someone needed to shoot him" story.


In my quote that you copied, I just want to point out that an opinion is not a lie.  Just sayin'...

Nobody in the Zimmerman/Martin affair is any hero of mine.  Maybe he's the hero you deserve--not me.
 
2013-06-24 07:41:46 AM

gimmegimme: =) I love that you replied with two posts and a few hundred words...but I'm the distraught one.

I'm just trying to understand the mindset of folks who think that Zimmy was 0% in the wrong or shouldn't have a trial or shouldn't serve any time whatsoever for causing the situation and firing the bullet that killed a kid.


I do tend to be a verbose writer, however I have no emotional involvement in this game whatsoever. As I said before, I really, frankly, don't give a shiat either way. It's a tenuous case of self defense at best, and a murder at worst. And, since we have shiat for evidence, I do not have sufficient information to even begin to draw a conclusion. As it stands, Zimmerman could be convicted, or he could be acquitted, and I would have no problem with either outcome.

All I have attempted to get YOU to see is that your scenario of events is equally disingenuous as the people who claim Zim is 100% the victim. And, since the legal system does not recognize anything but the final acts as actual issues, they're going to have a hard time proving one way or the other.

Anyway, 17 year olds aren't kids. Both men acted stupidly that night, and it cost one of them their life and farked up the life of the other. There's nothing either heroic or desirable about it.  I've had friends and colleagues and students go through similar trials because of lack of evidence one way or the other. No matter what happens, both people get farked in the end.
 
Displayed 37 of 687 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report