purplerat wrote:

Moridin wrote:

Acetone wrote:It's actually against the law to follow someone and Martin would have been jutsified completely in confronting him. I'm pretty sure I outlined why earlier on in this thread when the incident first occurred.

No, it is not illegal to walk after someone. You are confusing "walking after someone" with "stalking". Stalking is the repeated harassment and following of someone with the intent to instill fear or injury and not at all the same as walking after someone.

In other words, you are abusing and misusing a legal concept in an effort to prop up your position. I think most reasonable people easily see through that charade.

As I suggested way earlier in the thread, if you really believe it's not a crime then go to a park or just walk around the streets in your neighborhood. Follow some kid around for a while and when they get scared and run away start chasing them. See how kindly the police take to that behavior.

You are not addressing my argument. Why?

Legally speaking, walking after someone and stalking are not identical. Engage the legal argument please.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:I'm still trying to rap my head around how shooting someone who's running away from you can be considered self-defense.

It wouldn't be, and that isn't what happened. M was shot from point blank range, there was gunpowder stippling on his clothes. This was consistent with Z's story that M was on top of him at the time of the shooting.

Acetone wrote:

Moridin wrote:

Acetone wrote:It's actually against the law to follow someone and Martin would have been jutsified completely in confronting him. I'm pretty sure I outlined why earlier on in this thread when the incident first occurred.

No, it is not illegal to walk after someone. You are confusing "walking after someone" with "stalking". Stalking is the repeated harassment and following of someone with the intent to instill fear or injury and not at all the same as walking after someone.

In other words, you are abusing and misusing a legal concept in an effort to prop up your position. I think most reasonable people easily see through that charade.

Perhaps you should actually read the laws? And no, I'm not talking about stalking.

Then it is not clear what exactly your argument is suppose to be. It is not illegal to walk after someone.

laklak wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:I'm still trying to rap my head around how shooting someone who's running away from you can be considered self-defense.

It wouldn't be, and that isn't what happened. M was shot from point blank range, there was gunpowder stippling on his clothes. This was consistent with Z's story that M was on top of him at the time of the shooting.

Ah then the Dutch news made a serious cock-up.

They really did!

Moridin wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Moridin wrote:

Acetone wrote:It's actually against the law to follow someone and Martin would have been jutsified completely in confronting him. I'm pretty sure I outlined why earlier on in this thread when the incident first occurred.

No, it is not illegal to walk after someone. You are confusing "walking after someone" with "stalking". Stalking is the repeated harassment and following of someone with the intent to instill fear or injury and not at all the same as walking after someone.

In other words, you are abusing and misusing a legal concept in an effort to prop up your position. I think most reasonable people easily see through that charade.

As I suggested way earlier in the thread, if you really believe it's not a crime then go to a park or just walk around the streets in your neighborhood. Follow some kid around for a while and when they get scared and run away start chasing them. See how kindly the police take to that behavior.

You are not addressing my argument. Why?

Legally speaking, walking after someone and stalking are not identical. Engage the legal argument please.

How about you stop characterizing what Zimmerman did. He was not merely walking after somebody. He saw Martin run away from him and ran after him.

I never said he was stalking Martin (at least not literally in the legal sense). What I did say is that running after somebody in a threatening manner could be prosecuted as assault. One misconception many have about the charge of assault is that it requires physical contact or battery. It doesn't. Making a physical threat against somebody - and chasing after somebody can certainly be seen as threat - is all that's required for assault. You can go back to the earlier part of this thread, over a year ago shortly after the incident first happened, and see that's the exact same case I was making. Not that I'm a prosecutor or think I know better than the prosecution but I felt that was the stronger case. The direction the DA actually did go, I completely understand and agree with acquittal.

I am also concerned about the way that the media described Martin as a "boy" or a "kid".

Martin was a 17-year-old young man, 180 cm and 72 kg (according to the Wikipedia page) who, according to an eyewitnesses, had martial arts skills. Hardly a "kid".

purplerat wrote:How about you stop characterizing what Zimmerman did. He was not merely walking after somebody. He saw Martin run away from him and ran after him.

You are missing the point: it is not illegal to walk or job or run after someone. Felony battering (what the evidence suggests that Martin did), on the other hand, is illegal.

What I did say is that running after somebody in a threatening manner could be prosecuted as assault.

Again, completely irrelevant to the legal arguments. The fact that some DA could conceivably want to attempt to prosecute a person who walks after someone else as assault does not in the slightest way necessarily entail that such behavior is illegal. That is determined by the law. All it implies is that some DA wants to attempt to build a case for assault.

The act of following after a person is not in itself illegal.

I'd roll in the grass & get my friend to break my nose too, if I'd just shot a kid & noticed M n Ms falling out of his pockets instead of stolen pearls and crowbars.
Lie like fuck or go to jail?

Moridin wrote:I am also concerned about the way that the media described Martin as a "boy" or a "kid".

Martin was a 17-year-old young man, 180 cm and 72 kg (according to the Wikipedia page) who, according to an eyewitnesses, had martial arts skills. Hardly a "kid".

It's very common in the US to call any minor and even those a couple of years past the age of adulthood "kids"/"boys" and FWIW females are often called "girls" right up until they are middle aged.
It's nothing unusual. I sat through several high school graduation ceremonies last month and more times than not the graduates were refereed to using juvenile nomenclature. If you follow college sports you'll similarly here such terms for athletes who may be well into their 20s.

The reported interaction as recorded on Trayvor Martin's autopsy report suggests a rather different series of events when compared to Zimmerman's later account. Also shooting someone directly 'front to back' is more consistent with this initial account than some one on their back on the ground while shooting someone above them.

" At approximately 1910 hours on 02/26/2012, 911 dispatchers received a call from a resident of the complex. The resident advised of a B/M who was at the complex between the townhouses. The caller stated that the male should not have been in the area and he observed the male while walking his neighborhood watch. Shortly after the call the resident confronted the male and the two began to physically fight. Witnesses observed the two fighting in the yard and then the resident fired a handgun at the male striking him in the chest. The male fell to the ground. SPD and SPF arrived on the scene. The male was pronounced dead at 1930 hours."

Moridin wrote:

purplerat wrote:How about you stop characterizing what Zimmerman did. He was not merely walking after somebody. He saw Martin run away from him and ran after him.

You are missing the point: it is not illegal to walk or job or run after someone. Felony battering (what the evidence suggests that Martin did), on the other hand, is illegal.

What I did say is that running after somebody in a threatening manner could be prosecuted as assault.

Again, completely irrelevant to the legal arguments. The fact that some DA could conceivably want to attempt to prosecute a person who walks after someone else as assault does not in the slightest way necessarily entail that such behavior is illegal. That is determined by the law. All it implies is that some DA wants to attempt to build a case for assault.

The act of following after a person is not in itself illegal.

Saying Zimmerman "walked" after him when in fact he ran/jogged would be like characterizing Martin's assault as a shove/push and not a punch/pummeling. Do you think that's really irrelevant?

purplerat wrote:

Moridin wrote:I am also concerned about the way that the media described Martin as a "boy" or a "kid".

Martin was a 17-year-old young man, 180 cm and 72 kg (according to the Wikipedia page) who, according to an eyewitnesses, had martial arts skills. Hardly a "kid".

It's very common in the US to call any minor and even those a couple of years past the age of adulthood "kids"/"boys" and FWIW females are often called "girls" right up until they are middle aged.
It's nothing unusual. I sat through several high school graduation ceremonies last month and more times than not the graduates were refereed to using juvenile nomenclature. If you follow college sports you'll similarly here such terms for athletes who may be well into their 20s.

Have you ever seen media outrage that we let kids drive (you can get a permit to drive if you are 17)? That we are sending kids to die in wars in other countries (you can join the military at 17 if you have parental consent)? It seems to be the case that the label "kid" is used selectively.

The fact that a practice is common does not make it any less deceptive. Although not conclusive by any means, it may be the case that media unintentionally attempts to portray Martin as a defenseless child.

Moridin wrote:
The act of following after a person is not in itself illegal.

The act of speaking to somebody is not in itself illegal either. But if you use the right words or tone it can certainly be assault.

purplerat wrote:Saying Zimmerman "walked" after him when in fact he ran/jogged would be like characterizing Martin's assault as a shove/push and not a punch/pummeling. Do you think that's really irrelevant?

Regardless of the velocity, following after someone is not illegal. It is completely irrelevant to the legal question of whether or not the prosecution could demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty of second degree murder or the lesser charge.

Moridin wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Moridin wrote:I am also concerned about the way that the media described Martin as a "boy" or a "kid".

Martin was a 17-year-old young man, 180 cm and 72 kg (according to the Wikipedia page) who, according to an eyewitnesses, had martial arts skills. Hardly a "kid".

It's very common in the US to call any minor and even those a couple of years past the age of adulthood "kids"/"boys" and FWIW females are often called "girls" right up until they are middle aged.
It's nothing unusual. I sat through several high school graduation ceremonies last month and more times than not the graduates were refereed to using juvenile nomenclature. If you follow college sports you'll similarly here such terms for athletes who may be well into their 20s.

Have you ever seen media outrage that we let kids drive (you can get a permit to drive if you are 17)? That we are sending kids to die in wars in other countries (you can join the military at 17 if you have parental consent)? It seems to be the case that the label "kid" is used selectively.

The fact that a practice is common does not make it any less deceptive. Although not conclusive by any means, it may be the case that media unintentionally attempts to portray Martin as a defenseless child.

Yes, you hear "kid" used all the in those situations. And you frequently hear "kid" used whether people are defending young drivers or against them or are defending young troops or are objecting to them. It's a pretty universal term. People use it all the time to describe "kids" doing bad things as well. In fact I'd say there's often a pretty strong stigma against teenage "kids". The fact is that Trayvon Martin was a minor. There's nothing deceptive about referring to him in a manner that also describes as such.

Ironclad wrote:I'd roll in the grass & get my friend to break my nose too, if I'd just shot a kid & noticed M n Ms falling out of his pockets instead of stolen pearls and crowbars.
Lie like fuck or go to jail?

Perhaps this belongs in the conspiracy theory section?

purplerat wrote:Plus as somebody else mentioned earlier when I call Zimmerman fat and out of shape, Zimmerman put on most of his current weight since that night.

The police report had Zimmerman at 200 pounds, which is pretty fat for 5 foot 7. You should have stuck to your guns on that one, since in that case you were actually correct.

There is no question that Zimmerman deliberately shot and killed Martin. No-one is disputing that.

It should therefore be upon him to prove that he had no choice. If he cannot, he should be convicted of murder.

The first problem Zimmerman has with that is the evidence does not support his story.

He does not have injuries consistent with being punched repeatedly and having his head repeatedly smashed into concrete. His injuries were a handful of minor cuts, scrapes and swelling. He did not have a broken nose. Detective Serino, who spoke with Zimmerman after the incident, has said that he thought Zimmerman's injuries were not consistent with the severe attack Zimmerman claimed to have suffered.

Martin was more or less the same height as Zimmerman (2" taller) but much, much lighter and this also calls into question Zimmerman's claims that he had to escalate to lethal force as a matter of life and death.

Forensics showed that Martin had none of Zimmerman's blood or other genetic material on his hands or under his nails. That is not possible given the description of the incident Zimmerman gave.

Martin's hands were not cut or bruised, again not possible if Zimmerman were telling the truth. There was one tiny abrasion on (I think) the ring finger of his left hand but it wasn't certain if this might have predated the incident. His hands were almost pristine.

Witness evidence was partial and contradictory, and so doesn't tell us much. All we know for sure is that Zimmerman himself killed the main witness.

Zimmerman has already lied to the court about his income. He and his partner had concealed a large sum of cash and Zimmerman had a second passport hidden in a safety deposit box.

Also, Zimmerman did not dare to take the stand. Why would he not, if everything happened just as he described it?

The only possible conclusion is that Zimmerman has lied repeatedly in order to escape punishment. We do not know if Martin threw the first punch, or was first to grab or push, but we can say with a high level of confidence that he did not launch the severe attack that Zimmerman claimed and, of course, he was not armed. Zimmerman alone is responsible for escalating the confrontation to lethal force. He murdered a kid who was only 16 years old a few weeks before and the fact that he got away with it will become a historic miscarriage of justice to rival OJ.

On the issue of calling Trayvon a kid, let's see what this fellow who had quite a bit of insight into the matter has to say:

George Zimmerman wrote:I don't know where this kid is.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... erman.html