- 6,964
- 5,141
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2009
Really bring up what Rachel said? Not for nothing she is farrrrrr from credible bro. You're better than that.
Why isn't she credible?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Really bring up what Rachel said? Not for nothing she is farrrrrr from credible bro. You're better than that.
Following turns into stalking when it is unwanted. On the phone call to Rachel Jeantel, he clearly communicated that he did not want Zimmerman following him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking
Really bring up what Rachel said? Not for nothing she is farrrrrr from credible bro. You're better than that.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.048.htmlA person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person 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.
So you think he was wrong then?... what would justice be to you
Edit: Clearly Zimmerman should get AT LEAST manslaughter
I disagree but we can still look to the state of FL law against stalking. There goes that word again, FOLLOWS.
Willfully -"Are you following him? We don't need you to do that"
Maliciously -"F-ing Punks", While carrying a gun
Repeatedly - Got out of car, and then followed on foot.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.048.html
I disagree but we can still look to the state of FL law against stalking. There goes that word again, FOLLOWS.
Willfully -"Are you following him? We don't need you to do that"
Maliciously -"F-ing Punks", While carrying a gun
Repeatedly - Got out of car, and then followed on foot.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.048.html
Reaching? Not really.What a damn reach. You can't possibly believe what's coming out of your mouth. Why would someone seriously waste that much time bro? Get real.
I disagree but we can still look to the state of FL law against stalking. There goes that word again, FOLLOWS.
Willfully -"Are you following him? We don't need you to do that"
Maliciously -"F-ing Punks", While carrying a gun
Repeatedly - Got out of car, and then followed on foot.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.048.html
What's the keyword BEFORE follows bro? REPEATEDLY. he followed him ONCE. not the same
But he says OK though when he's told to stop following. Why is this CONTINOUSLY overlooked? And you DO know that NBC tape was edited. DONT YOU? That is a FACT
REPEATEDLY is subjective and isn't defined in that state statute for a reason. Repeatedly could be argued to mean following in a vehicle and then again following them on foot. You follow a person once in your car, then you follow them again on foot.
So clearly, an argument could easily be made for Zimmerman meeting all the requirements of stalking.
REPEATEDLY is subjective and isn't defined in that state statute for a reason. Repeatedly could be argued to mean following in a vehicle and then again following them on foot. You follow a person once in your car, then you follow them again on foot.
So clearly, an argument could easily be made for Zimmerman meeting all the requirements of stalking.
You're seriously stretching to prove your point and according to Zimmerman he was in his car to go to target when he spotted trayvon. Not exactly chasing down. You can twist it anyway you want to make it sound good for you.
Honestly. Not sure. I think he should get some jail time if anything to prove a point. I don't however think he should get the 15/30 yes discussed and I do think trayvon had some parts of this whole ordeal. I truly believe its not as easy as saying trayvon was slayed down in cold blood. I don't think he should get any time if trayvon truly attacked him.
How about 5 yrs for agg assault?
He then continued to talk to the operator for another minute and 20 seconds. According to TM phone records the incident happened 2 minutes after GZ got off of the phone with the operator. Please explain what was GZ doing for 3 minutes and 20 seconds if he wasn't looking for TM?
Now you are backtracking. You said it wasn't illegal to follow 2 pages ago. Now, I shut all that down it's "he was in his car to go to Target".
I'm done with this discussion.
He then continued to talk to the operator for another minute and 20 seconds. According to TM phone records the incident happened 2 minutes after GZ got off of the phone with the operator. Please explain what was GZ doing for 3 minutes and 20 seconds if he wasn't looking for TM?
Sounded like me he stopped since the actual wind stopped in the background. I'm no scientist but that would suggest one has stopped walking..
Honestly. Not sure. I think he should get some jail time if anything to prove a point. I don't however think he should get the 15/30 yes discussed and I do think trayvon had some parts of this whole ordeal. I truly believe its not as easy as saying trayvon was slayed down in cold blood. I don't think he should get any time if trayvon truly attacked him.
How about 5 yrs for agg assault?
BUT... he killed someone... after he followed them. At a minimum I think it's obvious that TM was the person that initially felt threatened. GZ made a poor and incorrect assumption and killed a 17 year old. Whether cold blooded or not... I think, at least from a social policy standpoint, he stepped outside of the boundaries of a neighborhood watchman. No one wants to live in a society where an armed man can follow you around at night in the rain, and if you respond they can murder you. That deserves far more than aggravated assault imo. Jail time or not, Zimmerman at least gets his life, which is far more than what Trayvon got for assumptions....
The "liberal media" msnbc has been completly crapping on the prosecutions closing statements. They have essentially been on "zimmy" side since the trial started. I can't watch during the day so I only see the reactions on msnbc and they seem to love up the defense especially this blonde girl been slurping up the defense
I have a feeling they would like nothing more than zimmerman to get off. Better for ratings.
No! He must hang!So you think he was wrong then?... what would justice be to you
Edit: Clearly Zimmerman should get AT LEAST manslaughter
Honestly. Not sure. I think he should get some jail time if anything to prove a point. I don't however think he should get the 15/30 yes discussed and I do think trayvon had some parts of this whole ordeal. I truly believe its not as easy as saying trayvon was slayed down in cold blood. I don't think he should get any time if trayvon truly attacked him.
How about 5 yrs for agg assault?
Sounded like me he stopped since the actual wind stopped in the background. I'm no scientist but that would suggest one has stopped walking..
Huh? Haven't watched MSNBC really.they DID edit the initial tape however to make Zimmerman come off as a complete racist though. Any channel that employs rev Al most def ain't taking up for Zimmerman.
cnn hln MSNBC are without a doubt in the TM camp.
FOX most def in zimmeam camp.
They started off making him the devil. Because that gets the most ratings. Then... When everyone was turned against him, and hates him... They are on his side to win
What gets more ratings? OJ guilty or OJ innocent?
There is no liberal media anymore. It's big money rules all. That simple. They are giant corporations. Businesses. They would give anything for riots that they could cover for a week.
Just like people think Chris Matthews is a liberal. He isn't. These people on msnbc are for the status quo. Just a money maker.
Lets go by the facts... From the time that GZ opened his door and the operator asked him if he was following TM and advised him not to follow, about 17 seconds went by. GZ then continued to talk to the operator for another 1.20 seconds. If he stopped like you're suggesting, what the hell was he doing for that 1.20 seconds while talking to the operator? Just standing there? Why wasn't he walking back to his vehicle? According to the call, the operator was fine with the address that GZ provided him with. So his excuse of " I needed an exact address," is BS. Then, the conflict between he and TM was around 2 minutes after he hung up with the operator. I have yet to hear GZ or his defense give a explanation as to what was going on while all of this time was passing by.