R.I.P Trayvon

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.

Nah, read it. It only takes into account whether the person was in fear of his life before pulling the trigger. Nothing before that matters for self defense
 
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 :lol: 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.

Exactly. A neighborhood watch captain who can let a 17 year old boy get the best of him after a year of MMA training is an unfit captain.
 
This may be a stupid question but since GZ was able to get funding for attorney fees $500k I read. Could money have been raised for the Martin family to hire top notch attorney also or were they stuck with the state prosecuter they had regardless of funds?

I ask this b/c I hear all the comments and tweets by celebrities and just wonder if they cared that much they could have contributed to the cost of a better attorney who might have made better choices to solidify some jail time for GZ.
 
You clearly didn't take enough time to interpret the sub sections. Read it again and think. Really really really think.

Why don't you summarize it for me since you seem confident that you know the law.

Again to repeat my question.. Where does it state that it's LEGAL for someone to harass an individual in the middle of the night?
 
Last edited:
Why don't you summarize it for me since you seem confident that you know the law.

Again to repeat my question.. Where does it state that it's LEGAL for someone to harass an individual in the middle of the night?

I'll give you an example.

(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.

Get it? You need to actually read, interpret, apply.

I had to do this in all my Philosophy of Law courses. It just shows you how there are "secret doors" located everywhere within the law library. That is why the law is so flawed and is frequently being amended.
 
This may be a stupid question but since GZ was able to get funding for attorney fees $500k I read. Could money have been raised for the Martin family to hire top notch attorney also or were they stuck with the state prosecuter they had regardless of funds?

I ask this b/c I hear all the comments and tweets by celebrities and just wonder if they cared that much they could have contributed to the cost of a better attorney who might have made better choices to solidify some jail time for GZ.

Good question.

Can someone sum up what the controversy was surrounding Rachel Jeantel?
 
This may be a stupid question but since GZ was able to get funding for attorney fees $500k I read. Could money have been raised for the Martin family to hire top notch attorney also or were they stuck with the state prosecuter they had regardless of funds?

I ask this b/c I hear all the comments and tweets by celebrities and just wonder if they cared that much they could have contributed to the cost of a better attorney who might have made better choices to solidify some jail time for GZ.

Good question.

Can someone sum up what the controversy was surrounding Rachel Jeantel?

The state was the one pressing the charges against Zimmerman so no they couldn't have hired a better lawyer, at least I don't think so anyhow. According to the juror last night, they couldn't understand what she was saying so that made her less credible.
 
I'll give you an example.

(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.

Get it? You need to actually read, interpret, apply.

I had to do this in all my Philosophy of Law courses. It just shows you how there are "secret doors" located everywhere within the law library. That is why the law is so flawed and is frequently being amended.

^ Speak to me like I am in middle school cause I do not understand. What you posted answered my question of where does it state that it's LEGAL for someone to harass an individual in the middle of the night? Cause it wasn't a series of acts over a period of time? So Zimmerman had to follow TM multiple times for it to be illegal?

To my interpretation.. as soon as GZ disregarded police instruction, he became an armed stalker based on that law. As soon as he became a stalker, all his actions were UNLAWFUL.
 
Last edited:
The state was the one pressing the charges against Zimmerman so no they couldn't have hired a better lawyer, at least I don't think so anyhow. According to the juror last night, they couldn't understand what she was saying so that made her less credible.
I could understand they chose not to understand cause they seen a black woman who in their eyes was nothing than a piece of ****
 
This may be a stupid question but since GZ was able to get funding for attorney fees $500k I read. Could money have been raised for the Martin family to hire top notch attorney also or were they stuck with the state prosecuter they had regardless of funds?

I ask this b/c I hear all the comments and tweets by celebrities and just wonder if they cared that much they could have contributed to the cost of a better attorney who might have made better choices to solidify some jail time for GZ.

Good question.

Can someone sum up what the controversy was surrounding Rachel Jeantel?

The state was the one pressing the charges against Zimmerman so no they couldn't have hired a better lawyer, at least I don't think so anyhow. According to the juror last night, they couldn't understand what she was saying so that made her less credible.
basically thought she was uneducated and it made her less credible
 
Last edited:
This may be a stupid question but since GZ was able to get funding for attorney fees $500k I read. Could money have been raised for the Martin family to hire top notch attorney also or were they stuck with the state prosecuter they had regardless of funds?

I ask this b/c I hear all the comments and tweets by celebrities and just wonder if they cared that much they could have contributed to the cost of a better attorney who might have made better choices to solidify some jail time for GZ.

Good question.

Can someone sum up what the controversy was surrounding Rachel Jeantel?

The state was the one pressing the charges against Zimmerman so no they couldn't have hired a better lawyer, at least I don't think so anyhow. According to the juror last night, they couldn't understand what she was saying so that made her less credible.

Correct, I mean, they could've chosen a better team to try this case though. It seems like that team went fishing and didn't know what kind of bait they needed
 
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.

Nah, read it. It only takes into account whether the person was in fear of his life before pulling the trigger. Nothing before that matters for self defense

My bad, Im incorrect, it has to be a "lawful activity" so they cant throw a punch first.
 
This may be a stupid question but since GZ was able to get funding for attorney fees $500k I read. Could money have been raised for the Martin family to hire top notch attorney also or were they stuck with the state prosecuter they had regardless of funds?

I ask this b/c I hear all the comments and tweets by celebrities and just wonder if they cared that much they could have contributed to the cost of a better attorney who might have made better choices to solidify some jail time for GZ.

Good question.

Can someone sum up what the controversy was surrounding Rachel Jeantel?

The state was the one pressing the charges against Zimmerman so no they couldn't have hired a better lawyer, at least I don't think so anyhow. According to the juror last night, they couldn't understand what she was saying so that made her less credible.
basically thought she was uneducated and it made her less credible

The irony in all of that is that the juror sounded dumb than a bag of rocks :smh:
 
This may be a stupid question but since GZ was able to get funding for attorney fees $500k I read. Could money have been raised for the Martin family to hire top notch attorney also or were they stuck with the state prosecuter they had regardless of funds?

I ask this b/c I hear all the comments and tweets by celebrities and just wonder if they cared that much they could have contributed to the cost of a better attorney who might have made better choices to solidify some jail time for GZ.

Good question.

Can someone sum up what the controversy was surrounding Rachel Jeantel?

The state was the one pressing the charges against Zimmerman so no they couldn't have hired a better lawyer, at least I don't think so anyhow. According to the juror last night, they couldn't understand what she was saying so that made her less credible.
basically thought she was uneducated and it made her less credible

The irony in all of that is that the juror sounded dumb than a bag of rocks :smh:
exactly
 
^ Speak to me like I am in middle school cause I do not understand. What you posted answered my question of where does it state that it's LEGAL for someone to harass an individual in the middle of the night? Cause it wasn't a series of acts over a period of time? So Zimmerman had to follow TM multiple times for it to be illegal?

To my interpretation.. as soon as GZ disregarded police instruction, he became an armed stalker based on that law. As soon as he became a stalker, all his actions were UNLAWFUL.

The law does not state what is legal. That would be insane. It states what is not legal.

According to the statute, it is only harassment if it was a series of acts over a period of time. The GZ case does not fit.

In regards to stalking:

(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.

Can the state prove that GZ maliciously and repeatedly followed TM. No. So the GZ case is not a stalking case either.

When you interpret law, every word is a KEY word, especially conjunctions.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the replies, fellas.

Just saw that Tom Joyner offered to pay for her college if/when she finishes HS.
 
The law does not state what is legal. That would be insane. It states what is not legal.

According to the statute, it is only harassment if it was a series of acts over a period of time. The GZ case does not fit.

In regards to stalking:

(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.

Can the state prove that GZ maliciously and repeatedly followed TM. No. So the GZ case is not a stalking case either.

Got it thanks! Probably would have been easier if you stated this from the beginning :lol:

So let me put this law in a scenario.. an old creepy guy sees a fine looking girl at a mall. Follows her all around the mall, to her car, to her home and it's legal!?!?

Is this right?
 
^ Speak to me like I am in middle school cause I do not understand. What you posted answered my question of where does it state that it's LEGAL for someone to harass an individual in the middle of the night? Cause it wasn't a series of acts over a period of time? So Zimmerman had to follow TM multiple times for it to be illegal?

To my interpretation.. as soon as GZ disregarded police instruction, he became an armed stalker based on that law. As soon as he became a stalker, all his actions were UNLAWFUL.

And this is why you fail. 911 operators are not cops. I repeat ARE NOT COPS. They are regular employees who have no authority to tell you anything. They can merely give you a suggestion.

This is one of the biggest misconceptions of this trial.
 
Got it thanks! Probably would have been easier if you stated this from the beginning :lol:

So let me put this law in a scenario.. an old creepy guy sees a fine looking girl at a mall. Follows her all around the mall, to her car, to her home and it's legal!?!?

Is this right?

Technically yes until the girl files a restraining order.
 
Got it thanks! Probably would have been easier if you stated this from the beginning :lol:

So let me put this law in a scenario.. an old creepy guy sees a fine looking girl at a mall. Follows her all around the mall, to her car, to her home and it's legal!?!?

Is this right?

Every state is different. According to FL stalking statutes, unless there's proof of maliciousness or threatening in the creepy guy's intent; or depending on how the state interprets "repeatedly," he hasn't done anything illegal.

Some may interpret the act of following her to different places as "repeated."
 
Every state is different. According to FL stalking statutes, unless there's proof of maliciousness or threatening in the creepy guy's intent; or depending on how the state interprets "repeatedly," he hasn't done anything illegal.

Some may interpret the act of following her to different places as "repeated."

True good point.

I would think once the following left the mall then that would be grounds for at least an arrest.
 
This may be a stupid question but since GZ was able to get funding for attorney fees $500k I read. Could money have been raised for the Martin family to hire top notch attorney also or were they stuck with the state prosecuter they had regardless of funds?

I ask this b/c I hear all the comments and tweets by celebrities and just wonder if they cared that much they could have contributed to the cost of a better attorney who might have made better choices to solidify some jail time for GZ.

:stoneface:
 
Back
Top Bottom