Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If George Zimmerman minded his own business, didn't stalk Travyon, then there would have been no altercation. Trayvon had every right to fight back. This changes nothing. As people keep repeatedly pointing out, you don't get to start a fight and then cry foul that you were injured. I hope he WAS injured.

You are assuming that GZ was "stalking" -- or approaching TM in a threatening manner. Is it "stalking" if I see you walking on the sidewalk in front of my house and walk toward you? You are making assumptions that GZ was chasing TM with a gun loaded and exposed. That's one scenario. But there are other possible scenarios where TM was walking and GZ walked in his direction so that he would be able to direct the police (whom he called to the scene). It IS legal for someone to approach another person and say "what are you doing here?" That's not starting a fight.


We don't know who started the fight yet -- but that is the only issue that matters in determing whether it was self defense. Unless there is evidence that GZ took the gun out and pointed it at TM, none of the approaching or talking behavior matters at all. The only issue is who made it a physical attack. If TM didn't like how GZ was asking him questions and TM threw a punch at GZ, then under Florida law GZ apparently had the right to shoot TM. I'm not saying that I'm happy about that law or the fact that TM has lost his life as a result of a fight.

BUT, the PP who keeps saying GZ was "stalking" TM with a gun is making assumptions that are not supported by evidence to date. What's the difference b/t "stalking" and walking up to someone or trying to catch up with someone who is ahead of you? Stalking requires the intent to create fear in another or the intent to do harm. The fact that GZ called the police non-emergency line to get police to help him check this fellow out would undermine any argument that GZ was actually "stalking" TM. GZ was "investigating" someone who he thought looked out of place. What happened once GZ and TM met -- well, that's still to be determined, but please let go of your emotionally inflammatory language and look at the facts.

No, it doesn't. The only time that comes up at all is the credible threat definition. Standard, run of the mill stalking, doesn't require any intent to create fear or the intent to do harm. Sorry.

(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(b) "Course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.
(c) "Credible threat" means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person.
(d) "Cyberstalk" means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.
(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person's child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

PP here, so sorry about messing up that quote. Basically, I want to know whether we know that Z "profiled" and whether we know that Z strted the initial interaction (which is distinct from walking after someone who is clearly trying to get away)

You can dress it up anyway you like. Zimmerman instigated this. Zimmerman [/b]profiled[b] TM. Zimmerman brought a gun and

CHOSE to confront

this person who was no imminent threat to Zimmerman. Zimmerman created this situation and its tragic consequences. TM is the one who was KILLED. Zimmerman deserves to be punished for killing a child.

A couple questions because I am honetly getting confused about what is factual and what are people's conclusions.
Do we know that Z "profiled" M? What does that even mean? I think I recall that the only time Z mentioned M's race, it was in response to a direct question from the 911 operator, right?
Do we know how the "confrontation" started? I honestly do not remember if that has come out. Absolutely Z was following M, who was walking away. But I think it is still up in the air whether M turned and started the interaction or whether Z did it?

You are assuming that GZ was "stalking" -- or approaching TM in a threatening manner. Is it "stalking" if I see you walking on the sidewalk in front of my house and walk toward you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Woman here. If I am walking down a street at night, and a guy is staring at me, and then a few blocks later he comes driving up to me, and approaches me, uninvited, to talk to me, ask me what I am doing there, you bet your ass I am SCARED SHITLESS.

I think if you are a black person in American you also would feel pretty frightened at that point.

I think the dispatcher audio proves that Zimmerman stalked TM in a threatening manner. IMHO, no lawyer here.

I keep imagining if that were me or my child just trying to walk home and some vigilante took it upon himself to follow and harass me.

You can dress it up anyway you like. Zimmerman instigated this. Zimmerman profiled TM. Zimmerman brought a gun and CHOSE to confront this person who was no imminent threat to Zimmerman. Zimmerman created this situation and its tragic consequences. TM is the one who was KILLED. Zimmerman deserves to be punished for killing a child.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't matter at all what the dispatcher told or advised GZ to do. (Yes, I agree with the PP who stated that the dispatcher simply told him they don't need him to follow TM). Even if the dispatcher had said "stay where you are! Don't take another step!" It wouldn't make any difference.

GZ has a right to walk in public on the common grounds and approach whoever is out there. He can walk right up to TM and say "what are you doing?" That doesn't give TM the right to punch someone for asking him a question. Even if GZ was insulting and said "Hey N---, what are you doing?" (I am not saying GZ said that.) It doesn't give TM the right to start punching GZ. Being insulted does not give you the right to punch someone. Now, if GZ was lunging toward TM with hands outstretched or if GZ pulled out his gun (which is unlikely since it would have been lost in the scuffle that ensued), then TM has a right to fight back.

But, GZ and anyone else has a right to approach and ask questions of anyone in the common area. That is not enough for TM to claim that HE was defending himself when he punched GZ.

The dispatcher's statements are irrelevant to the claim of self defense on either side.

Yes, and TM has a right to walk home in his father's neighborhood without being stalked or chased. Apparently GZ even said to the dispatcher that he had "lost him" and hunted him down. So, TM saw he was being stalked, ran away, was chased down while trying to get away from the crazy man with the gun. And then when trying to get away a second time, GZ, the vigilante policeman-wannabe yells in classic TV fashion "Stop or I'm going to shoot". When TM continues to run, GZ shoots him.

Yes, this is a lot of conjecture, but it's worth about the same as your fictional accounting above. You need to go write for tabloids.

He was a guest in a gated community different set of rules because its not a public place

Nice try, Perry Mason, but gated communities don't have separate criminal law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't matter at all what the dispatcher told or advised GZ to do. (Yes, I agree with the PP who stated that the dispatcher simply told him they don't need him to follow TM). Even if the dispatcher had said "stay where you are! Don't take another step!" It wouldn't make any difference.

GZ has a right to walk in public on the common grounds and approach whoever is out there. He can walk right up to TM and say "what are you doing?" That doesn't give TM the right to punch someone for asking him a question. Even if GZ was insulting and said "Hey N---, what are you doing?" (I am not saying GZ said that.) It doesn't give TM the right to start punching GZ. Being insulted does not give you the right to punch someone. Now, if GZ was lunging toward TM with hands outstretched or if GZ pulled out his gun (which is unlikely since it would have been lost in the scuffle that ensued), then TM has a right to fight back.

But, GZ and anyone else has a right to approach and ask questions of anyone in the common area. That is not enough for TM to claim that HE was defending himself when he punched GZ.

The dispatcher's statements are irrelevant to the claim of self defense on either side.

Yes, and TM has a right to walk home in his father's neighborhood without being stalked or chased. Apparently GZ even said to the dispatcher that he had "lost him" and hunted him down. So, TM saw he was being stalked, ran away, was chased down while trying to get away from the crazy man with the gun. And then when trying to get away a second time, GZ, the vigilante policeman-wannabe yells in classic TV fashion "Stop or I'm going to shoot". When TM continues to run, GZ shoots him.

Yes, this is a lot of conjecture, but it's worth about the same as your fictional accounting above. You need to go write for tabloids.

He was a guest in a gated community different set of rules because its not a public place

You're kidding, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't matter at all what the dispatcher told or advised GZ to do. (Yes, I agree with the PP who stated that the dispatcher simply told him they don't need him to follow TM). Even if the dispatcher had said "stay where you are! Don't take another step!" It wouldn't make any difference.

GZ has a right to walk in public on the common grounds and approach whoever is out there. He can walk right up to TM and say "what are you doing?" That doesn't give TM the right to punch someone for asking him a question. Even if GZ was insulting and said "Hey N---, what are you doing?" (I am not saying GZ said that.) It doesn't give TM the right to start punching GZ. Being insulted does not give you the right to punch someone. Now, if GZ was lunging toward TM with hands outstretched or if GZ pulled out his gun (which is unlikely since it would have been lost in the scuffle that ensued), then TM has a right to fight back.

But, GZ and anyone else has a right to approach and ask questions of anyone in the common area. That is not enough for TM to claim that HE was defending himself when he punched GZ.

The dispatcher's statements are irrelevant to the claim of self defense on either side.

Yes, and TM has a right to walk home in his father's neighborhood without being stalked or chased. Apparently GZ even said to the dispatcher that he had "lost him" and hunted him down. So, TM saw he was being stalked, ran away, was chased down while trying to get away from the crazy man with the gun. And then when trying to get away a second time, GZ, the vigilante policeman-wannabe yells in classic TV fashion "Stop or I'm going to shoot". When TM continues to run, GZ shoots him.

Yes, this is a lot of conjecture, but it's worth about the same as your fictional accounting above. You need to go write for tabloids.

He was a guest in a gated community different set of rules because its not a public place

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't matter at all what the dispatcher told or advised GZ to do. (Yes, I agree with the PP who stated that the dispatcher simply told him they don't need him to follow TM). Even if the dispatcher had said "stay where you are! Don't take another step!" It wouldn't make any difference.

GZ has a right to walk in public on the common grounds and approach whoever is out there. He can walk right up to TM and say "what are you doing?" That doesn't give TM the right to punch someone for asking him a question. Even if GZ was insulting and said "Hey N---, what are you doing?" (I am not saying GZ said that.) It doesn't give TM the right to start punching GZ. Being insulted does not give you the right to punch someone. Now, if GZ was lunging toward TM with hands outstretched or if GZ pulled out his gun (which is unlikely since it would have been lost in the scuffle that ensued), then TM has a right to fight back.

But, GZ and anyone else has a right to approach and ask questions of anyone in the common area. That is not enough for TM to claim that HE was defending himself when he punched GZ.

The dispatcher's statements are irrelevant to the claim of self defense on either side.

Yes, and TM has a right to walk home in his father's neighborhood without being stalked or chased. Apparently GZ even said to the dispatcher that he had "lost him" and hunted him down. So, TM saw he was being stalked, ran away, was chased down while trying to get away from the crazy man with the gun. And then when trying to get away a second time, GZ, the vigilante policeman-wannabe yells in classic TV fashion "Stop or I'm going to shoot". When TM continues to run, GZ shoots him.

Yes, this is a lot of conjecture, but it's worth about the same as your fictional accounting above. You need to go write for tabloids.

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't matter at all what the dispatcher told or advised GZ to do. (Yes, I agree with the PP who stated that the dispatcher simply told him they don't need him to follow TM). Even if the dispatcher had said "stay where you are! Don't take another step!" It wouldn't make any difference.

GZ has a right to walk in public on the common grounds and approach whoever is out there. He can walk right up to TM and say "what are you doing?" That doesn't give TM the right to punch someone for asking him a question. Even if GZ was insulting and said "Hey N---, what are you doing?" (I am not saying GZ said that.) It doesn't give TM the right to start punching GZ. Being insulted does not give you the right to punch someone. Now, if GZ was lunging toward TM with hands outstretched or if GZ pulled out his gun (which is unlikely since it would have been lost in the scuffle that ensued), then TM has a right to fight back.

But, GZ and anyone else has a right to approach and ask questions of anyone in the common area. That is not enough for TM to claim that HE was defending himself when he punched GZ.

The dispatcher's statements are irrelevant to the claim of self defense on either side.

Look at all of these assumptions, and the way you refer to each person. Crazy.

I agree with you to some extent PP. So the idiot who posted previously, and said "If trayvon didnt cut through a neighbor hood and disrespect a place he was a guest to he wouldnt be dead" is full of it too, right?

If someone approaches me with a gun in any capacity, I would consider that, hmmmm, a hostile act?? Yeah, a little more than being insulted. You all really think TM just jumped him out of nowhere? That's laughable.

It doesn't matter at all what the dispatcher told or advised GZ to do. (Yes, I agree with the PP who stated that the dispatcher simply told him they don't need him to follow TM). Even if the dispatcher had said "stay where you are! Don't take another step!" It wouldn't make any difference.

GZ has a right to walk in public on the common grounds and approach whoever is out there. He can walk right up to TM and say "what are you doing?" That doesn't give TM the right to punch someone for asking him a question. Even if GZ was insulting and said "Hey N---, what are you doing?" (I am not saying GZ said that.) It doesn't give TM the right to start punching GZ. Being insulted does not give you the right to punch someone. Now, if GZ was lunging toward TM with hands outstretched or if GZ pulled out his gun (which is unlikely since it would have been lost in the scuffle that ensued), then TM has a right to fight back.

But, GZ and anyone else has a right to approach and ask questions of anyone in the common area. That is not enough for TM to claim that HE was defending himself when he punched GZ.

The dispatcher's statements are irrelevant to the claim of self defense on either side.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE

Medical report says Zimmerman had broken nose, other injuries after fight
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/16/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Autopsy results show Trayvon Martin had injuries to his knuckles
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/autopsy-results-show-trayvon-martin-had-injuries-h/nN6gs/

How come no outrage? This thug was a menace.

It's interesting that on the day and night of the shooting, Zimmerman was checked by police and ER personnel who did not believe that he required medical assistance. They didn't even put a bandaid on his head. And yet, THE NEXT DAY, he has 2 black eyes, a fractured nose and 2 lacerations on the back of his head. So, why were those injuries so serious the next day, but not in the first 12 hours after the incident? And if you look at the video of Zimmerman being led into the police station, there are no visible lacerations or blood on the back of his head, no signs of black eyes or fractured nose (not even a nose bleed) on his face. The question is when did those injuries take place? Mr. Zimmerman's story still has some issues.

You were there? Tell us more

No, I wasn't. But I just read the articles that YOU (or the other PP) linked plus saw the video that was posted last month about his arrival at the police station.

Anonymous wrote:

Nope. The police told him to back off and stop "investigating." We know that for a fact. The fact that he continued put him right where his is now - facing murder charges.

The police did not say that. The police told Z that he did not need to follow Martin. They did not tell him to stop. It is a small difference, but a meaningful one. I apologize if I am missing some new pirce of information that indicates the police told hime to "back off" and stop investigating. but if you are deriving your information from the 911 tapes, it is not accurate.

I do not take sides on the debate. But that "fact" is just not accurate. I wonder whether Z would have stopped follwing if he had a clear instruction from the police to stop. I wonder how it would affect his defense if there was such an instruction. But we will never know.

Oh puhleeze.

Nope. The police told him to back off and stop "investigating." We know that for a fact. The fact that he continued put him right where his is now - facing murder charges.

The police did not say that. The police told Z that he did not need to follow Martin. They did not tell him to stop. It is a small difference, but a meaningful one. I apologize if I am missing some new pirce of information that indicates the police told hime to "back off" and stop investigating. but if you are deriving your information from the 911 tapes, it is not accurate.

I do not take sides on the debate. But that "fact" is just not accurate. I wonder whether Z would have stopped follwing if he had a clear instruction from the police to stop. I wonder how it would affect his defense if there was such an instruction. But we will never know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If George Zimmerman minded his own business, didn't stalk Travyon, then there would have been no altercation. Trayvon had every right to fight back. This changes nothing. As people keep repeatedly pointing out, you don't get to start a fight and then cry foul that you were injured. I hope he WAS injured.

You are assuming that GZ was "stalking" -- or approaching TM in a threatening manner. Is it "stalking" if I see you walking on the sidewalk in front of my house and walk toward you? You are making assumptions that GZ was chasing TM with a gun loaded and exposed. That's one scenario. But there are other possible scenarios where TM was walking and GZ walked in his direction so that he would be able to direct the police (whom he called to the scene). It IS legal for someone to approach another person and say "what are you doing here?" That's not starting a fight.


We don't know who started the fight yet -- but that is the only issue that matters in determing whether it was self defense. Unless there is evidence that GZ took the gun out and pointed it at TM, none of the approaching or talking behavior matters at all. The only issue is who made it a physical attack. If TM didn't like how GZ was asking him questions and TM threw a punch at GZ, then under Florida law GZ apparently had the right to shoot TM. I'm not saying that I'm happy about that law or the fact that TM has lost his life as a result of a fight.

BUT, the PP who keeps saying GZ was "stalking" TM with a gun is making assumptions that are not supported by evidence to date. What's the difference b/t "stalking" and walking up to someone or trying to catch up with someone who is ahead of you? Stalking requires the intent to create fear in another or the intent to do harm. The fact that GZ called the police non-emergency line to get police to help him check this fellow out would undermine any argument that GZ was actually "stalking" TM. GZ was "investigating" someone who he thought looked out of place. What happened once GZ and TM met -- well, that's still to be determined, but please let go of your emotionally inflammatory language and look at the facts.

Nope. The police told him to back off and stop "investigating." We know that for a fact. The fact that he continued put him right where his is now - facing murder charges.