R.I.P Trayvon

[Trent Reznor]

exactly. If I follow a random woman at night down the street and she purposefully crosses the street and I follow, it's ok because "hey it's not illegal"?

in florida yes.

I've seen this 10000x already. ITS NOT ILLEGAL.

Get it through your head. Damn.

 

[lyonbc1]

Was he diagnosed as clinically depressed? I'm asking bc I hadn't heard that and you're making assumptions if he wasn't, and I am too if he was.

My ex girlfriend in high school was depressed, my best friend was depressed as in they went to doctors and were diagnosed and on and off of meds. We have no idea of his metabolism or any of that. All I'm saying is lawyers have done MUCH more grimey things than tell a client to pack on weight. I dont think its as outrageous as you're saying.

dude. I was never "clinically" diagnosed depressed either. Had no insurance to get it actually.

Does that mean I wasn't depressed? HELL NO. I wasn't working a real gig, couldn't find a job, put in 100's of apps weekly and was failing left and right. I was working 3 jobs daily to keep the bills in line the best I could and food on the table.

I ate garbage cause of time, drank more often and was too tired to exercise. I packed on weight FAST.

But since a doctor didn't SAY i was depressed I must not have been?

I still never went to a doctor cause personally I'm not one that believes in a lot of meds. Once I got stable again though i was able to work on myself and get things right in my head again.


And to answer your question I have no idea if he was diagnosed depressed or not. Wasn't brought up in the trial. His brother said it though yesterday on Opie and Anthony.

That makes MORE sense than your theory though.

Fair points. I was saying more so that it's quite a leap to just assume someone is depressed from a distance when we don't see any behavior or anything that would suggest it.we don't know his metabolism, weight history, etc. He was on some kind of pills at the time of the shooting if I remember. Yet no toxicology was done on the shooter only the victim, which I would think is a weird protocol.

We just disagree and we are never going to agree or know the reality. Lawyers manipulate things plain and simple. Which would make a jury of people who haven't really seen you much or supposedly as unbiased as possible more sympathetic (which is also a sham but regardless) an obese guy looking guy who is bursting belt buckles with their belly overflowing their pants or an average looking guy who "looks" relatively in shape? With the facts of this case? Id say a fat guy would make it seem more credible that they were unable to really defend themselves.

 

[sundoobie]

Who was he appointed by?

A neighborhood watch person has no power. Anyone can follow someone. Unless they get a protective order.

Exactly. Where in the neighborhood watch guidebook does it says.. if you see a suspicious person, you're allowed to follow them and not follow police instructions to stay in the car.

 

[Trent Reznor]

If anything this trial has shown that there needs to be serious law reform if not in the state of Florida but the whole country.


I know I've gone off on tangents in this thread a few times, but hey we ALL did.

My bottom line, a 17 year old shouldn't have been murdered, but by Florida law GZ shouldn't have been prosecuted either. PERIOD.

 

[sundoobie]

Fair points. I was saying more so that it's quite a leap to just assume someone is depressed from a distance when we don't see any behavior or anything that would suggest it. He was on some kind of pills at the time of the shooting if I remember. Yet no toxicology was done on the shooter only the victim, which I would think is a weird protocol.

We just disagree and we are never going to agree or know the reality. Lawyers manipulate things plain and simple. Which would make a jury of people who haven't really seen you much or supposedly as unbiased as possible more sympathetic (which is also a sham but regardless) an obese guy looking guy who is bursting belt buckles with their belly overflowing their pants or an average looking guy who "looks" relatively in shape? With the facts of this case? Id say a fat guy would make it seem more credible that they were unable to really defend themselves.

No doubt ZImmerman put on that weight for sympathy purposes and to change his appearance. That juror last night on CNN was feeling all sorry for Zimmerman and it was just sickening to hear a juror member actually feeling sympathy for someone that murdered a kid in cold blood!

Look at this manipulation

View media item 497898

 

[Trent Reznor]

Exactly. Where in the neighborhood watch guidebook does it says.. if you see a suspicious person, you're allowed to follow them and not follow police instructions to stay in the car.

Dispatchers have ZERO authority.

ZERO.

I don't believe they said stay in the car...
GZ: "I'm following him."
Dispatcher: "we don't need you to do that."
GZ: "OKAY."

NEVER said stay in the car. And they were saying that for GZ's PROTECTION, not as a deterrent.

Where does it say you CANT follow someone?

I understand the emotions in this case but you have to SEE the law.

 

[celticsfan9783]

in florida yes.

I've seen this 10000x already. ITS NOT ILLEGAL.

Get it through your head. Damn.

 

[sundoobie]

Dispatchers have ZERO authority.

ZERO.

I don't believe they said stay in the car...
GZ: "I'm following him."
Dispatcher: "we don't need you to do that."
GZ: "OKAY."

NEVER said stay in the car. And they were saying that for GZ's PROTECTION, not as a deterrent.

Where does it say you CANT follow someone?

I understand the emotions in this case but you have to SEE the law.

And where does it say in the law that it's legal to harass an individual in the middle of the night?

 

[oidreez]

exactly. If I follow a random woman at night down the street and she purposefully crosses the street and I follow, it's ok because "hey it's not illegal"?

in florida yes.

I've seen this 10000x already. ITS NOT ILLEGAL.

Get it through your head. Damn.

so you're telling me in florida if that woman calls the police, they're gonna say "sorry it's not illegal for him to follow you, have a good night"?

Just because something is not illegal doesn't make it socially right.

Point being, ZIm should have handled the whole situation differently. You can argue Zimmerman didn't do anything illegal all you want, it doesn't make him innocent

 

[lyonbc1]

If anything this trial has shown that there needs to be serious law reform if not in the state of Florida but the whole country.


I know I've gone off on tangents in this thread a few times, but hey we ALL did.

My bottom line, a 17 year old shouldn't have been murdered, but by Florida law GZ shouldn't have been prosecuted either. PERIOD.

I agree, but I mean in a case like this I would expect a trial when you kill someone under these circumstances. It's pretty reasonable to think a trial is gonna come to at least get all the facts out there imo. And by the letter of the law, he was not guilty. But laws do need to be revisited for sure.

One thing though, where is this line of justifiable fear? Like that's impossible to quantifiably measure as it varies...that is why this law is flawed. Anyone can say they were in fear at reallllllly different levels. If someone can have authority to shoot and kill someone in fear over an event without direct provocation like a break in or something, it's just really always going to have doubt over what actually happened.

 

[Trent Reznor]

so you're telling me in florida if that woman calls the police, they're gonna say "sorry it's not illegal for him to follow you, have a good night"?

Just because something is not illegal doesn't make it socially right.

Point being, ZIm should have handled the whole situation differently. You can argue Zimmerman didn't do anything illegal all you want, it doesn't make him innocent

Of course the cops won't say that. But they "follower" ALSO WILL NOT BE ARRESTED, unless, there was a RESTRAINING order. Never have i denied ANYTHING said was morally right or wrong.

Thats not the LAW though.

The sooner people figure out what the law actually is, the sooner real reform can take place.

NOTHING is going to happen by being ignorant of it and not channeling outrage to the right place.

 

[jecca650]

No doubt ZImmerman put on that weight for sympathy purposes and to change his appearance. That juror last night on CNN was feeling all sorry for Zimmerman and it was just sickening to hear a juror member actually feeling sympathy for someone that murdered a kid in cold blood!

Look at this manipulation

View media item 497898

gain weight+square bear haircut+clean shave=harmless, clumsy goober


mark o'mara knew what he was doing.

 

[sundoobie]

so you're telling me in florida if that woman calls the police, they're gonna say "sorry it's not illegal for him to follow you, have a good night"?

I am gonna follow women in the middle of the night with a loaded handgun and nothing is going to happen to me right? If I try to rape her, and she fighst back, I can "stand my ground" and kill her! What kind of stupid common sense is this?

 

[Trent Reznor]

I agree, but I mean in a case like this I would expect a trial when you kill someone under these circumstances. It's pretty reasonable to think a trial is gonna come to at least get all the facts out there imo. And by the letter of the law, he was not guilty. But laws do need to be revisited for sure.

Agreed, but in the same token, there was evidence withheld by the prosecution too.

Fair is fair.

 

[Magic33]

Dispatchers have ZERO authority.

ZERO.

I don't believe they said stay in the car...
GZ: "I'm following him."
Dispatcher: "we don't need you to do that."
GZ: "OKAY."

NEVER said stay in the car. And they were saying that for GZ's PROTECTION, not as a deterrent.

Where does it say you CANT follow someone?

I understand the emotions in this case but you have to SEE the law.

They said that for both reasons, because nothing good can come of what Zimmerman did. He could have continued following Trayvon from a decent distance if he was so concerned about the neighborhood. He wanted a confrontation, and he felt safe because he had a gun and it was just one person. If he was scared of Trayvon, he wouldn't have confronted him without his weapon drawn. He cut Trayvon off from the direction he was going. And he didn't even has his gun at a location he could get to it quickly.

There's the law and then there's common sense. I'm not sure why you keep arguing the law, because everyone realizes it.

If someone were following you....what would you do? Run away?

I'm not sure why you dudes keep playing devils advocate. Are you bored at work?

 

[oidreez]

so you're telling me in florida if that woman calls the police, they're gonna say "sorry it's not illegal for him to follow you, have a good night"?

Just because something is not illegal doesn't make it socially right.

Point being, ZIm should have handled the whole situation differently. You can argue Zimmerman didn't do anything illegal all you want, it doesn't make him innocent

Of course the cops won't say that. But they "follower" ALSO WILL NOT BE ARRESTED, unless, there was a RESTRAINING order. Never have i denied ANYTHING said was morally right or wrong.

Thats not the LAW though.

The sooner people figure out what the law actually is, the sooner real reform can take place.

NOTHING is going to happen by being ignorant of it and not channeling outrage to the right place.

I cannot argue the law in florida because I'm from chicago and am not familiar with it. I can only comment on the situation as a whole and say those laws need to be revised.

 

[celticsfan9783]

And where does it say in the law that it's legal to harass an individual in the middle of the night?

Florida 784.048. Do your homework bro. There's a lot that can be interpreted within that.

so you're telling me in florida if that woman calls the police, they're gonna say "sorry it's not illegal for him to follow you, have a good night"?

The police will come do a routine check. It's called community policing. Something doesn't have to be "illegal" for police to respond dude.

Just because something is not illegal doesn't make it socially right.

True. mala in prohibita vs. mala in se

Point being, ZIm should have handled the whole situation differently. You can argue Zimmerman didn't do anything illegal all you want, it doesn't make him innocent

Yes he should have handled it differently. He's probably guilty morally, but not legally.

 

[Betonblck]

The way that law is written, you can punch someone first and if that person fights back and there is reasonable fear that your life is in danger, you can kill them.

 

[Trent Reznor]

They said that for both reasons, because nothing good can come of what Zimmerman did. He could have continued following Trayvon from a decent distance if he was so concerned about the neighborhood. He wanted a confrontation, and he felt safe because he had a gun and it was just one person. If he was scared of Trayvon, he wouldn't have confronted him without his weapon drawn. He cut Trayvon off from the direction he was going. And he didn't even has his gun at a location he could get to it quickly.

There's the law and then there's common sense. I'm not sure why you keep arguing the law, because everyone realizes it.

If someone were following you....what would you do? Run away?

I'm not sure why you dudes keep playing devils advocate. Are you bored at work?

pretty much. Not trolling or anything, it is what I believe. I really need to study though.

I wish I was studying criminal law right now. Sucks I gotta jump from these discussions to Business law and ethics. So damn boring.

 

[sharkin]

The way that law is written, you can punch someone first and if that person fights back and there is reasonable fear that your life is in danger, you can kill them.

No, that's the way an illiterate person would read it, not how it is written.

 

[celticsfan9783]

I am gonna follow women in the middle of the night with a loaded handgun and nothing is going to happen to me right? If I try to rape her, and she fighst back, I can "stand my ground" and kill her! What kind of stupid common sense is this?

There are loopholes in the law. It's not news. You're acting like you cracked the Da Vinci code by posting scenarios that will result in your immunity.

 

[oidreez]

So we're all in agreement he's guilty morally. Thank you

 

[sundoobie]

Florida 784.048. .

Ok and? You gave me the code pertaining to stalking laws that ZImmerman BROKE! Where does it say it's legal to harass individuals in the middle of the night based on this law?

Let's see to my interpretation... ZImmerman was guilty of

1(a) course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.

(2) A 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.

784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.—
(1) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that 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, which evidences a continuity of purpose. The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests.

(c) “Credible threat” means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution under this section.

(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) A 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) A 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.

(4) A person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that person’s property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another 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.

(5) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a child under 16 years of age 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.

(6) A law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person that he or she has probable cause to believe has violated this section.

(7) A person who, after having been sentenced for a violation of s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5) and prohibited from contacting the victim of the offense under s. 921.244, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks the victim 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.

( The punishment imposed under this section shall run consecutive to any former sentence imposed for a conviction for any offense under s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5).

(9)(a) The sentencing court shall consider, as a part of any sentence, issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with the victim, which may be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by the court. It is the intent of the Legislature that the length of any such order be based upon the seriousness of the facts before the court, the probability of future violations by the perpetrator, and the safety of the victim and his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the victim.
(b) The order may be issued by the court even if the defendant is sentenced to a state prison or a county jail or even if the imposition of the sentence is suspended and the defendant is placed on probation.

 

[lyonbc1]

I agree, but I mean in a case like this I would expect a trial when you kill someone under these circumstances. It's pretty reasonable to think a trial is gonna come to at least get all the facts out there imo. And by the letter of the law, he was not guilty. But laws do need to be revisited for sure.

Agreed, but in the same token, there was evidence withheld by the prosecution too.

Fair is fair.

True. Prosecution wasn't great by any means, overcharging was the first mistake and there were other blunders like you said.

I also find it funny that the juror said shed love to have him as her neighborhood watchman like even if you believe that GZ would handle a teen of any ethnicity the same way, that's not how you handle that job at all. Its not ok or desirable to have someone acting like that for that job. That jury seems like it wasn't full of the brightest bulbs either. He deserved a fair trial and then it's up to the state and lawyers and we see how it turns out.

 

[celticsfan9783]

Ok and? You gave me the code pertaining to stalking laws that ZImmerman BROKE! Where does it say it's legal to harass individuals in the middle of the night based on this law?

Let's see to my interpretation... ZImmerman was guilty of

1(a) course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.

(2) A 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.

You clearly didn't take enough time to interpret the sub sections. Read it again and think. Really really really think.