Trayvon Martin Case Updates: 2 Judges Recuse, "graphic pictures" of Zimmerman's Injuries, Bond set at $150K (Clarence Thomas, legal)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
“The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: ‘help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911,” he said.
Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.
The witness only wanted to be identified as “John,” and didn’t not want to be shown on camera.
His statements to police were instrumental, because police backed up Zimmerman’s claims, saying those screams on the 911 call are those of Zimmerman.
“When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point,” John said.
Um, this is old news, whogo. "John" changed his story back in May. By the way, there are no 911 calls from people saying "I was outside" or anything of that nature. Again, keep up-to-date!
Here's an article from "The Orlando Sentinel" dated May 22, but we posted about this several times on this forum.
This witness lived a few feet from where Trayvon and Zimmerman had their fight. On the night of the shooting, he told Serino he saw a black man on top of a lighter-skinned man "just throwing down blows on the guy, MMA-style," a reference to mixed martial arts.
He also said the one calling for help was "the one being beat up," a reference to Zimmerman.
But three weeks later, when he was interviewed by an FDLE agent, the man said he was no longer sure which one called for help.
"I truly can't tell who, after thinking about it, was yelling for help just because it was so dark out on that sidewalk," he said.
He also said he was no longer sure Trayvon was throwing punches. The teenager may have simply been keeping Zimmerman pinned to the ground, he said.
He did not equivocate, though, about who was on top.
Kind of hard to flee when someone is straddling you. Would you not agree?
Reading for comprehension isn't your strongest suit is it. Go back and read the statute because fleeing isn't the only course of action laid out by the statute.
Quote:
Paul Valone:
Of course, Corey circumvented the grand jury knowing there was no substantial evidence to get an indictment.
Who the frack is Paul Valone and why should I care? Circumvent a grand jury? As they say, a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich if they choose. There is no requirement or necessity for a state's attorney to seek a grand indictment in anything other than a capital crime. If the argument is that the state lacks substantial evidence, Zimmerman's attorney's will have every opportunity to present that argument when they enter a motion to dismiss. However, the statement of the investigating officer, Zimmerman's copious statements to police, and the numerous recordings made by the police dispatcher, in mine opinion, makes the argument of insubstantial evidence risible. Is the evidence enough to win a conviction of 2nd degree murder, we'll see but an out and out dismissal, I'd bet the virtual bank against it.
Assuming the question, if it had been properly phrased, is "does following a person justify the use of force"?
No. The question was: does merely following a person equals a use of force as describe in Florida's statute?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
that would depend on the reasonable or unreasonableness of the person use of force, doesn't it? If you perceive that a person following you causes you to have a "reasonable" fear of death or great bodily harm, yes the use of force would be justified. For example, if a teenage girl was being followed by a man first in a car, then on foot turned around a used non-deadly force on her pursuer, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Yet under the law, we could construct a number of reasonable scenarios where a teenage boy being pursued by an adult male (see Sandusky) could argue that they had reasonable fear for their person which resulted in their use of non-deadly force to stop the pursuit.
That's bs. You're not an attorney, are you? Lol
Merely following somebody in a public space ia not a threat nor it justifies use of force. If it did papparazzi would be out of their jobs.
No. The question was: does merely following a person equals a use of force as describe in Florida's statute?
That's bs. You're not an attorney, are you? Lol
Merely following somebody in a public space ia not a threat nor it justifies use of force. If it did papparazzi would be out of their jobs.
But attacking you and breaking your nose and banging your head into concrete is.
He was justified to defend himself from a savage attack by the aggressor.
No. The question was: does merely following a person equals a use of force as describe in Florida's statute?
While I am often guilty of mangling a sentence or two, I've never managed to mangle the same sentence twice.
Quote:
You're not an attorney, are you?
Nope, but I can compose a coherent sentence.
Anyway, in answer to your question, no I am not an attorney. I discovered very quickly that being a lawyer wasn't the life I wanted to lead, so I dropped out but not before learning how to research statutes and case law. Coupled with 10 years covering courts and law enforcement as a journalist and sharing the last 25 years with a distinguished legal researcher and attorney who I have the opportunity to discuss legal issues with on a daily basis, I feel rather confident in my abilities to intelligently discuss basic issues of a legal nature. I hasten to add that based upon the comments, responses and rep points that I have received from practicing attorneys who frequent this forum, I think that my opinions, as limited as they are, have been right on point.
So where were we? Oh yeah...
"Does merely following a person equals(sic) a[the] use of force as describe[ed] in Florida's statute[s]?"
To coherently restate the question, again, "does merely following of a person justify the use of force under Florida statutes."
The simplest and most direct answer is no, as long as the operative word is "merely". But that isn't the issue at hand. The issue is that Zimmerman's "merely" following provoked Mr. Martin to respond to what he may have perceived as a threat to his well being. Now was this threat reasonable cause for Mr. Martin's striking out at Mr. Zimmerman, we will never know that answer to that question, but it doesn't matter because we do know through Mr. Zimmerman's own words that he wasn't "merely" following Mr. Martin. We also know from Mr. Zimmerman's own statements he was following Mr. Martin in a hostile and unjustified state of mind. We know that Mr. Zimmerman had on two separate occasions an opportunity to avoid a confrontation with Mr. Martin before Mr. Martin struck out at him. So, I would suggest that even the most feeble minded village idiot should be able to understand that under Florida law, Mr. Zimmerman had an obligation under Florida statue 776 to make the best use of those two opportunities to avoid or defuse a confrontation in order to make a prima facia argument justifying his use of deadly force.
Quote:
Merely following somebody in a public space ia not a threat nor it justifies use of force. If it did papparazzi(sic) would be out of their jobs.
Considering the number of times that paparazzi have been physically confronted/assaulted by their unwilling subjects and the number of times and the number of times that these highly publicized incidents have led to nary a prosecution of the offending celebrity one can only say, thank you for unwittingly discrediting your own point.
(a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(b) "Course of conduct" means a pattern a conduct composed of series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.
(c) "Credible threat" means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person.
(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses 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) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury, 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) Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section.
Um, this is old news, whogo. "John" changed his story back in May. By the way, there are no 911 calls from people saying "I was outside" or anything of that nature. Again, keep up-to-date!
Here's an article from "The Orlando Sentinel" dated May 22, but we posted about this several times on this forum.
This witness lived a few feet from where Trayvon and Zimmerman had their fight. On the night of the shooting, he told Serino he saw a black man on top of a lighter-skinned man "just throwing down blows on the guy, MMA-style," a reference to mixed martial arts.
He also said the one calling for help was "the one being beat up," a reference to Zimmerman.
But three weeks later, when he was interviewed by an FDLE agent, the man said he was no longer sure which one called for help.
"I truly can't tell who, after thinking about it, was yelling for help just because it was so dark out on that sidewalk," he said.
He also said he was no longer sure Trayvon was throwing punches. The teenager may have simply been keeping Zimmerman pinned to the ground, he said.
He did not equivocate, though, about who was on top.
"The black guy was on top," he said.
Maybe he didn't want Black Panthers on his back? People are scared of all black crime already, nobody wants an extra attention...
Oh, heaven spares us from the NRA pimping manufacture of hysteria and redherrings!
When the elements of the gun culture stop feeding the rabid paranoia of overwrought white folks who have about a snowballs chance in hell of being confronted by an unknown violent assailant we then might be able to have a rational discussion about self-defense, rational gun gun control, and the freedom to exercise one's 2nd Amendment Rights (yes, I am a gun owner, a concealed weapons permit holder, a liberal and a believer of the individuals right to keep and bear arms).
What you and others fail to understand is that Trayvon Martin could have looked like Charles Manson out on bail and had the previous arrest record Ted Bundy, and you it still wouldn't have the right to engage that person in a confrontational manner and expect protection under Florida statute 776.041 for using deadly force, especially if Trayvon Manson-Bundy Martin was lawfully minding his own business and being present in a place where they lawfully had a right to be.
I'm not feeling why this is a concept that appears too difficult to grasp.
It is you that can't grasp it pal. Put your grimy hands on this white girl because you think you have some special race or age privelidge to do so and given the opportunity it won't be the NRA you have to worry about.
what don't you understand about this? I can walk up to you get two inches from your face and look you in the eyebal. And ask you what the hell you are doing in my neighborhood and you can't do legally a damn thing about it? What don't you get about that pal/gal? I say to you, you are an Asian, Asian gangs have been robbing this neighborhood. I saw you looking around in the rain and peering in windows. Do you live here? I am a neighborhood watch. Look see me, I have a cell phone I am calling the police. Look see me, I have a right to protect my neighborhood and this is a public street I have the right to walk as close as I please behind you so long as I don't step on your heels. You have the right pal/gal to call the police, here take my cell phone call the police pal/gal and tell them there is a maniac stalking you and walking so close she is nearly stepping on my heals. If she touches me I am going to punch her in the nose, knock her to the ground and bang her head on the sidewalk until she nearly passes out. What don't you getvaboutbthat scenario pal/gal? I have a fundamental constitutional right to secure my neighborhood. According to Z if he turned out believed by a jury of his peers the confrontation took place when Trayvon closed ground on him. No walking on heels, no eyeball to eyeball why are you in my neighborhood. Just a young kid that someone had taught that brute force was an acceptable societal norm for dealing with problems. Don't like someone following you, just beat the hell out of them. Yea that's the way to run a life, but sooner or later that method will fail. That method failed.
I am wondering if black folks in this society have become so accustomed to crime in their streets that they believe it is acceptable to export that crime. My street doesn't want it. I would gladly have Zimmerman move onto my street.
Last edited by valerie d; 07-02-2012 at 05:52 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
