Trayvon Martin

Blockhead

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

no you can not follow anyone all night long. following someone and that person knows about it, it is an attempt to intimidate them. you can not legally intimidate someone into attacking you, and then claim victimhood. it is like poking a tiger with a stick and then blaming the tiger for the fight or flight response that it has.... you are provoking him to respond by your actions of following him.

i don't know any law that says you can follow someone to provoke them into assalting or battering you.

zimmerman is the instigator here simply by stalking trayvon. period.

LOL, I like how you throw those contingencies in there... "all night long", please tell me how long he followed him.
Following is an attempt to intimidate??? Is looking at someone an attempt to intimidate?
Is looking mean an attempt to intimidate? What kind of logic do you operate on...
POKING a tiger with a STICK is the same as walking behind someone?
Your welcome to provide me any info where following someone is considered intimidation by law and can be arrested for it.


"All night long"

JonnyPistachio

This law is fucked up:
"He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;"

I didnt know it included forcible felony

another fucked up case:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/ ... 6820120329

"But in Greyston Garcia's case, a judge disagreed. Garcia chased the alleged car-radio thief -- Pedro Roteta, 26 -- for more than a block, the Herald reports. Roteta, carrying a four-pound bag of car radios, swung the bag at Garcia's head; Garcia blocked the bag with one hand and stabbed Roteta in the chest.

Roteta's swinging of the bag could have caused serious bodily injury or death, and placed Garcia in fear for his life, the judge wrote."

Blockhead

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

no you can not follow anyone all night long. following someone and that person knows about it, it is an attempt to intimidate them. you can not legally intimidate someone into attacking you, and then claim victimhood. it is like poking a tiger with a stick and then blaming the tiger for the fight or flight response that it has.... you are provoking him to respond by your actions of following him.

i don't know any law that says you can follow someone to provoke them into assalting or battering you.

zimmerman is the instigator here simply by stalking trayvon. period.

On this same thought why aren't papparazzi arrested for "intimidation" everysingle time they follow celebs in public? How do you prove intent?
Do you have a law to back up your claim?

Godfather.

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

this getting totaly insain,the lawyer for zimmerman will have field day with all this tweeter stuff popping up and as I said character is huge in court and Trayvon's is looking .....a little suspect to say the least, not to say Zimmerman is looking like an angel but this stuff will or could sway a jury in his favor.


Godfather.

Zimmreman isnt looking like an angel?! haha, his character would be slaughtered compared to Treyvons. Sorry man, he has a police record with assault and that whole calling the police 46 times might indicate that he is a bit paranoid. How many of those calls resulted in an arrest, I wonder. I think he assaulted an officer and his girlfriend. He's a fucking lunatic.

no doubt about that JP but the last word (if it goes that far) will be that of a jury and that could swing in any direction depending on the both lawyers and how they present their cases, an old attorney friend of mine who was a member of the Bar told me that the 12 jurrors are/were referred to as the 12 idiots by a lot of attorneys but with that being said those 12 people can and will decide a case...which takes this post right back to character creditality.

Godfather.

JonnyPistachio

Godfather. wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

this getting totaly insain,the lawyer for zimmerman will have field day with all this tweeter stuff popping up and as I said character is huge in court and Trayvon's is looking .....a little suspect to say the least, not to say Zimmerman is looking like an angel but this stuff will or could sway a jury in his favor.


Godfather.

Zimmreman isnt looking like an angel?! haha, his character would be slaughtered compared to Treyvons. Sorry man, he has a police record with assault and that whole calling the police 46 times might indicate that he is a bit paranoid. How many of those calls resulted in an arrest, I wonder. I think he assaulted an officer and his girlfriend. He's a fucking lunatic.

no doubt about that JP but the last word (if it goes that far) will be that of a jury and that could swing in any direction depending on the both lawyers and how they present their cases, an old attorney friend of mine who was a member of the Bar told me that the 12 jurrors are/were referred to as the 12 idiots by a lot of attorneys but with that being said those 12 people can and will decide a case...which takes this post right back to character creditality.

Godfather.

True.

I wonder how much of that character stuff would be admissible in court though -- if it went that far.
Again , this IS Florida, and I have a feeling Zimmerman is in the company of Casey Anthny

gimmesometruth27

Blockhead wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

no you can not follow anyone all night long. following someone and that person knows about it, it is an attempt to intimidate them. you can not legally intimidate someone into attacking you, and then claim victimhood. it is like poking a tiger with a stick and then blaming the tiger for the fight or flight response that it has.... you are provoking him to respond by your actions of following him.

i don't know any law that says you can follow someone to provoke them into assalting or battering you.

zimmerman is the instigator here simply by stalking trayvon. period.

LOL, I like how you throw those contingencies in there... "all night long", please tell me how long he followed him.
Following is an attempt to intimidate??? Is looking at someone an attempt to intimidate?
Is looking mean an attempt to intimidate? What kind of logic do you operate on...
POKING a tiger with a STICK is the same as walking behind someone?
Your welcome to provide me any info where following someone is considered intimidation by law and can be arrested for it.


"All night long"

did you not just type this in your most recent post, or am i imagining it??

"I can follow you all night long, nothing illegal about that in the least."

peacefrompaul

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

no you can not follow anyone all night long. following someone and that person knows about it, it is an attempt to intimidate them. you can not legally intimidate someone into attacking you, and then claim victimhood. it is like poking a tiger with a stick and then blaming the tiger for the fight or flight response that it has.... you are provoking him to respond by your actions of following him.

i don't know any law that says you can follow someone to provoke them into assalting or battering you.

zimmerman is the instigator here simply by stalking trayvon. period.

LOL, I like how you throw those contingencies in there... "all night long", please tell me how long he followed him.
Following is an attempt to intimidate??? Is looking at someone an attempt to intimidate?
Is looking mean an attempt to intimidate? What kind of logic do you operate on...
POKING a tiger with a STICK is the same as walking behind someone?
Your welcome to provide me any info where following someone is considered intimidation by law and can be arrested for it.


"All night long"

did you not just type this in your most recent post, or am i imagining it??

"I can follow you all night long, nothing illegal about that in the least."

Yeah you can't just follow someone around... It's illegal and called stalking. Zimmerman isn't a cop....

Godfather.

JP it does not have to be admissible in court the whole country...world knows everything that hit any news stand or station on this case, I think that alone will make it hard to find a unbiassed jurry for either side.

Godfather.

gimmesometruth27

Blockhead wrote:

LOL, I like how you throw those contingencies in there... "all night long", please tell me how long he followed him.
Following is an attempt to intimidate??? Is looking at someone an attempt to intimidate?
Is looking mean an attempt to intimidate? What kind of logic do you operate on...
POKING a tiger with a STICK is the same as walking behind someone?
Your welcome to provide me any info where following someone is considered intimidation by law and can be arrested for it.


"All night long"

following someone is a form of intimidation. is stalking a crime? is stalking a form of intimidation? of course it is. and seriously, why would zimmerman trail this kid if he were not going to confront him? why would he chase him and track him down and say or do NOTHING?

if you are following me closely as im walking down the public street in a residential area i am going to either try to lose you or call the cops. if i run you have no right to chase me. you are not a cop, it is not your job to get involved physically at all.

what kind of logic do i operate on? evidently the correct side as most people in this thread agree with a lot of what i am saying. why are you defending zimmerman again anyway?

if you provoke someone you are responsible for the consequences. if zimmerman walked up behind martin and confronted him and martin knocked his teeth out he is responsible for causing that situation. zimmerman CHOSE to take both of their lives into his hands that night, and he had no legal right to do that.

if you look the various definitions and examples of intimidation, following someone is often listed as an example of intimidation.

JonnyPistachio

Godfather. wrote:

JP it does not have to be admissible in court the whole country...world knows everything that hit any news stand or station on this case, I think that alone will make it hard to find a unbiassed jurry for either side.

Godfather.

Very true...It would be difficult, nearly impossible... considering the attention this one is getting.

So GF, you asked what everyone thougth of Zimmerman's guilt...well now the question is, what does everyone think, will Zimmerman be arrested, or let off the hook?

If he's let off the hook, I'm thinking he needs to flee the country.

shadowcast

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

LOL, I like how you throw those contingencies in there... "all night long", please tell me how long he followed him.
Following is an attempt to intimidate??? Is looking at someone an attempt to intimidate?
Is looking mean an attempt to intimidate? What kind of logic do you operate on...
POKING a tiger with a STICK is the same as walking behind someone?
Your welcome to provide me any info where following someone is considered intimidation by law and can be arrested for it.


"All night long"

following someone is a form of intimidation. is stalking a crime? is stalking a form of intimidation? of course it is. and seriously, why would zimmerman trail this kid if he were not going to confront him? why would he chase him and track him down and say or do NOTHING?

if you are following me closely as im walking down the public street in a residential area i am going to either try to lose you or call the cops. if i run you have no right to chase me. you are not a cop, it is not your job to get involved physically at all.

what kind of logic do i operate on? evidently the correct side as most people in this thread agree with a lot of what i am saying. why are you defending zimmerman again anyway?

if you provoke someone you are responsible for the consequences. if zimmerman walked up behind martin and confronted him and martin knocked his teeth out he is responsible for causing that situation. zimmerman CHOSE to take both of their lives into his hands that night, and he had no legal right to do that.

if you look the various definitions and examples of intimidation, following someone is often listed as an example of intimidation.

I saw this about the paparazzi and why they are not considered stalkers and it seems to be the law in general throughout the country.

They often will be in the direct path, but they might not physically block the way. As long as they're not physically stopping the celebrity from going about their business, in most places, there's not much the celebrity can do about it. Unless a complaint is filed the police won't do anything about it though.

So as long as your not physically blocking a path or touching a person you can follow them as long as you want to.

JonnyPistachio

shadowcast wrote:

So as long as your not physically blocking a path or touching a person you can follow them as long as you want to.

I don't think that's 100% true--
How do people get stalking charges, harassment, intimidation -- all can result in restraining orders.

http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs14-stk.htm
http://www.nij.gov/nij/topics/crime/sta ... cution.htm

Godfather.

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

JP it does not have to be admissible in court the whole country...world knows everything that hit any news stand or station on this case, I think that alone will make it hard to find a unbiassed jurry for either side.

Godfather.

Very true...It would be difficult, nearly impossible... considering the attention this one is getting.

So GF, you asked what everyone thougth of Zimmerman's guilt...well now the question is, what does everyone think, will Zimmerman be arrested, or let off the hook?

If he's let off the hook, I'm thinking he needs to flee the country.

black panthers already have a hit out on him...which makes me wonder what is being done about that ? this is the second time they have stepped over the line legally and nothing is being done about ?...must be nice to be a black panther, back to the question will Zimmerman be arrested, or let off the hook?
I think unless they find some hard hitting evidense he will walk on any murder or manslaughter charges but Trayvons parents attorney will file a wrongful death claim and win but how are going to squeeze blood from a turnup ? ...remember O.J ?

Godfather.

shadowcast

JonnyPistachio wrote:

shadowcast wrote:

So as long as your not physically blocking a path or touching a person you can follow them as long as you want to.

I don't think that's 100% true--
How do people get stalking charges, harassment, intimidation -- all can result in restraining orders.

http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs14-stk.htm
http://www.nij.gov/nij/topics/crime/sta ... cution.htm

In that very moment can he be charged for stalking? I think this the question. If he is then Martin is defending himself. Zimmerman shot a boy who was defending himself against a stalker. I don't know anymore. I see both sides of this sad story.

gimmesometruth27

shadowcast wrote:

I saw this about the paparazzi and why they are not considered stalkers and it seems to be the law in general throughout the country.

They often will be in the direct path, but they might not physically block the way. As long as they're not physically stopping the celebrity from going about their business, in most places, there's not much the celebrity can do about it. Unless a complaint is filed the police won't do anything about it though.

So as long as your not physically blocking a path or touching a person you can follow them as long as you want to.

i am not sure that you are correct. celebrities live their lives in public. as such, papparazzo are a fact of life. it comes with the territory. the pops make their living taking pics of celebs out in public places, walking out of a bar or store, hanging out on the street, in public. it is a private citizen interacting with a public figure, and they do not touch or threaten or start shit with the celeb, or else the celeb is within his rights to protect himself...

zimmerman was not a cop. he was a private citizen pulling cop shit on another private citizen. he went to martin looking for a confrontation, and he got it. i am pretty sure that the law is applied differently when it is private citizen on private citizen and physical contact/fighting/shooting is involved.

a normal, everyday, average person should have the reasonable expectation that he is able to walk down a neighborhood street without the fear of someone shooting him in the chest. martin had the right to do so, and zimmerman took that right away when he took martin's life away...

inmytree

unsung wrote:

Martin allegedly told Zimmerman that "tonight he was going to die" and reached for Zimmerman's gun. That is all the justification that Zimmerman needed.

Where was Zimmerman's gun when the kid supposedly said this...?

inmytree

shadowcast wrote:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/29/second-trayvon-martin-twitter-feed-identified/

Another Twitter found by Trayvon. Let the character assassination begin.

It started a shortly after the event came to light...

shadowcast

Check out this Drudge Report headline.

http://drudgereport.com/

catefrances

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

shadowcast wrote:

I saw this about the paparazzi and why they are not considered stalkers and it seems to be the law in general throughout the country.

They often will be in the direct path, but they might not physically block the way. As long as they're not physically stopping the celebrity from going about their business, in most places, there's not much the celebrity can do about it. Unless a complaint is filed the police won't do anything about it though.

So as long as your not physically blocking a path or touching a person you can follow them as long as you want to.

i am not sure that you are correct. celebrities live their lives in public. as such, papparazzo are a fact of life. it comes with the territory. the pops make their living taking pics of celebs out in public places, walking out of a bar or store, hanging out on the street, in public. it is a private citizen interacting with a public figure, and they do not touch or threaten or start shit with the celeb, or else the celeb is within his rights to protect himself...

zimmerman was not a cop. he was a private citizen pulling cop shit on another private citizen. he went to martin looking for a confrontation, and he got it. i am pretty sure that the law is applied differently when it is private citizen on private citizen and physical contact/fighting/shooting is involved.

a normal, everyday, average person should have the reasonable expectation that he is able to walk down a neighborhood street without the fear of someone shooting him in the chest. martin had the right to do so, and zimmerman took that right away when he took martin's life away...

you know what... i dont believe the paparazzi have 'the right' to insinuate themselves into anyones life in anyway. if your continously snapping pics of someone, regardless of how famous they are then imo you seriously need to find a new line of work cause to me there is some level of invasion of privacy... i dont care if you are in public or not. imagine knowing that every time you step outside your door, or innocently have lunch with a friend or have a slight disagreement with your significant other on the street or even in your car that theres gonna be a headline and an accompanying photo. imagine strangers calling your name to grab your attention or even getting in your face to incite you to losing your cool so they can take the offending photo. its well enough to say suck it up your famous what do you expect youre a celebrity but i would shudder having to walk even an inch in some of these peoples shoes. it may not be stalking but it sure is to a certain degree an invasion of privacy and a pain in the arse.

hedonist

catefrances wrote:

you know what... i dont believe the paparazzi have 'the right' to insinuate themselves into anyones life in anyway. if your continously snapping pics of someone, regardless of how famous they are then imo you seriously need to find a new line of work cause to me there is some level of invasion of privacy... i dont care if you are in public or not. imagine knowing that every time you step outside your door, or innocently have lunch with a friend or have a slight disagreement with your significant other on the street or even in your car that theres gonna be a headline and an accompanying photo. imagine strangers calling your name to grab your attention or even getting in your face to incite you to losing your cool so they can take the offending photo. its well enough to say suck it up your famous what do you expect youre a celebrity but i would shudder having to walk even an inch in some of these peoples shoes. it may not be stalking but it sure is to a certain degree an invasion of privacy and a pain in the arse.

Just to tack on to this tangent - my office is across the street from two businesses patronized by "celebrities", so from time to time those vultures make a temporary home in our parking lot with their cameras, and when the ones they're stalking leave, they speed in their cars following them down the barely-two-way road, putting many (including their idiot selves) in jeopardy.

(that said, how many of those in the public eye who claim to want a private life broadcast the details on twitter of every healthy shit they take?)