George Zimmerman Arrested -- Finally!!

Can you say NOT GUITLY!!!!

THC Found in Travon Martin's system
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/17/justic...ing/?hpt=hp_t1

Martin started the fight and was the aggressor
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...ntcmp=obinsite

http://www.foxnews.com/us/slideshow/...eased/#slide=1

"In addition, Trayvon Martin's father told an investigator after listening to 911 tapes that captured a man's voice frantically callling for help that it was not his son calling for help. "

http://abcnews.go.com/US/cops-witnes...2#.T7WAy1K3NJE

Complete waste of tax payer money. The state will never get a conviction in this case. This is why the special prosecutor did not present this case to a grand jury. A no-bill would defeat her opportunity to pursue a political prosecution. Originally Posted by Billy_Saul

I do not believe that you did not give us the whole article:

The police report states that Trayvon Martin's father told an investigator after listening to 911 tapes that captured a man's voice frantically callling for help that it was not his son calling for help.

But Tracy Martin, Trayvon's father, claims that is not true. The Martin family lawyer Ben Crump told ABC News that Tracy Martin initially listened to a distorted version of the 911 calls and said he could not identify the voice. But when he listened to a second tape that had been "cleaned," "He immediately broke down in tears because he knew it was his son calling for help," Crump said.

Dante, how about responding to some of my comments to your comments rather than continue to rant and rave about how poor George Zimmerman was wronged. Black text belongs to you, red text belongs to me.

So the facts:
1. Zimmerman was doing his duty - which was lawful Zimmerman's duty (and he was not a member of any organized Neighborhood Watch organization) was not to confront anyone as he did. Even the police told him this when he called in reporting Martin's activity.
2. Following Martin was his duty and NOT unlawful (if you say it is unlawful provide a reference to prove so) Again, this was not his "duty". True it was not unlawful and I never said it was.
3. Altercation was started by Martin Were you there? What evidence do you have to support this statement?
4. Zimmerman's head was being bashed in True. But we DON'T know the reasons why Martin did it. Could be that Zimmerman pulled his gun on Martin and Martin was protecting himself.
5. Zimmerman's recourse was to defend himself If Zimmerman's story is true, then this is probably correct.
6. Fact - If Martin did not attack Zimmerman police would have arrived and the reason as to why Martin was there would have been discovered
Fact?? Again how do you know Zimmerman attacked Martin first?
7. Fact - Martin was the aggressor - Zimmerman cannot bash his head in on the concrete if he is on top of Martin
You have not jumped to a conclusion, you have made an incredible leap. I don't know what happened that night. You, on the other hand, must have been an eye-witness since you seem to know everything that happened. I am in no way saying Zimmerman is guilty but I am saying there is enough information out there to make it very questionable.
Your other references are ridiculous IMHO. I addressed 2 of them in my second note. Martin was not a saint and neither was Zimmerman, who had had run-ins with the law.

[/COLOR]2. Following Martin was his duty and NOT unlawful (if you say it is unlawful provide a reference to prove so) [COLOR=red]Again, this was not his "duty". True it was not unlawful and I never said it was. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Actually, absent any reason, what Zimmerman did is unlawful under Florida's stalking statute. Other than being black at night, Martin provided no real reason for Zimmerman to stalk and harass him. Zimmerman did this in spite of it being a violation of Neighborhood Watch protocol and police telling him specifically not to do it.



Fla. Stat. § 784.048. Stalking; definitions; penalties. (2008)
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(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 of conduct composed of a 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.
(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) Any 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) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person's child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, 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) Any 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) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a minor 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) 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.
(7) Any 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.
(8) 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).


http://www.ncvc.org/src/main.aspx?dbID=DB_Florida108

The truth is coming out f shart. I should've made that bet.

Asking what someone is doing is now stalking and harassment? Go take some remedial criminal justice classes. I hear acc is cheap.

Yeah, DP. It is. Read the statute. Since reading is also not your strong suit, here is the condensed version in bigger letters:

"Any 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."

Zimmerman both willfully and maliciously followed Martin, and other than his own prejudices, had absolutely no valid reason to do so.

"(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person's child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, 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."

If Martin was aware Zimmerman was carrying a side-arm while stalking him, or worse, if Zimmerman made Martin aware he was carrying it, that alone is a "credible threat" absent any valid reason for stalking and/or approaching Martin.

Remember folks, Martin was not doing anything even remotely wrong. If we have our facts correct, he was simply walking home from a trip to 7-11 to buy Skittles and chat with his girlfriend. Last I heard, being black at night is not reason for suspicion, much less a crime. Unless of course, you're a racist, gun-carrying, paranoid guy hopped up on prescription amphetamine taken for a psychiatric condition.

The truth? Nothing seems to have changed. Zimmerman stalked Martin, Martin beat Zimmerman for stalking and harassing him. Zimmerman, who had a history of violence and erratic behavior, who was also taking psychiatric medication shot and killed Martin. Does that about sum it up? If anything, it was Martin standing his ground, not Zimmerman.

This is where I take serious issue. What Martin looked like, or what kind of clothes he was wearing has absolutely no bearing on this issue. Uh I am talking about the pic that the media is showing of the both of them. Did you not understand that man. It is an old pic of Trayvon looking all innocent and the pic of George looks like a madman...I know that from the age of 15 to 17 can make a difference in your appearance you know stature and taste in who you hang out with. The fact remains that Martin was doing ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong that night, really you were there? Why don't you come forward in the case. much less illegal, again really you and Trayvon hang out? and was shot and killed for no other reason than being a black kid wearing a hoodie. Really you know that for a fact are you psychic? That's all there is to this case and anything that transpired from there on out was strictly due to Zimmerman's actions. Other than Zimmerman's own prejudice, there was no reason to stalk this kid. Listen to the 911 call, there was absolutely no doubt in Zimmerman's mind that this kid was up to no good. He based that on what exactly? Nothing more than the kid was black and wearing a hoodie? "Gang type" clothing? "Sweet and innocent looking"?Again the pic the media is using is several years old. Do you not hear yourself and your own prejudices? No if someone and I don't care if they are purple is wearing gang type clothing I would be suspicious of them if they are walking around in the dark looking into houses in the rain. What you are implying is that anyone who does not look "sweet and innocent" or wears "gang type" clothing MUST be suspicious. You bet your ass. This is EXACTLY the small-minded, ignorant, RACIST mentality that led Zimmerman to stalk and ultimately kill this kid for no reason.

That is using logic...You are small minded if you do not think someone that is wearing gang type clothing is out late at night trolling a neighborhood in the rain is normal. When I was that young my ass had to be in the house or I got in trouble. Had this happened to a white boy that was doing the same thing wearing the same clothes you would not hear shit about it. Racist cry me a river. I am sick and tired of the race card always being bought up.

As a side note, I am curious what you second amendment folks think about giving concealed weapons permits to folks who are taking psychiatric medication. Is this apparently okay with you folks and you take no issue with it? No one seems to be making any mention of the fact that Zimmerman has a well-documented history of violent and erratic behavior, and was indeed taking psychiatric meds the night he shot and killed Martin. Originally Posted by F-Sharp

I will never get a concealed hand gun permit. I want to continue to own guns to protect myself from the crazies.

Dante as soon as you post Fox News they don't believe it. These are extreme left wing loons.

F-Sharp...you're starting to look desperate to make your case.

Repeatedly? Obviously not.
Malicious Intent? Probably not this either.

Those words you quoted 4+ times are not in the statute accidentally. Stalking is definitionally a pattern of behavior, not a single incident.

F-Sharp...you're starting to look desperate to make your case.

Repeatedly? Obviously not.
Malicious Intent? Probably not this either.

Those words you quoted 4+ times are not in the statute accidentally. Stalking is definitionally a pattern of behavior, not a single incident. Originally Posted by irishlad

From Wikipedia:

"Stalking is a term commonly used to refer to unwanted and obsessive attention by an individual or group to another person. Stalking behaviors are related to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person and/or monitoring them. The word stalking is used, with some differing meanings, in psychology and psychiatry and also in some legal jurisdictions as a term for a criminal offense."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking

There is nothing stated here about a "pattern of behavior" or "not a single incident". Incidentally, we have no idea how many other people Zimmerman may have done this to.

I will never get a concealed hand gun permit. I want to continue to own guns to protect myself from the crazies. Originally Posted by Artist Formally Known As

Own guns to protect yourself from crazy people who own guns, because we insist that the right of any crazy person to own guns should be protected.

Guns don't kill people, crazy people with guns kill people. Or, people with guns protecting themselves from crazy people with guns kill people. Or, sometimes crazy people with guns kill people who don't have any guns.

It's nothing more than mother nature cleaning the gene pool if you ask me.

Dante as soon as you post Fox News they don't believe it. These are extreme left wing loons. Originally Posted by Artist Formally Known As

I have no problem with Fox so long as it's factual and supported. Unfortunately, that's few and far between. Dante just needs to figure out the difference between an opinion piece, and actual reporting. Hint: opinion pieces are usually the ones that say "Opinion" at the top of the page, and sometimes even the link itself is a clue.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/16/what-zimmerman-martin-medical-reports-tell-us-and-media-didnt/?intcmp=obinsite

Please dear God, let the next bombshell in this case be a video. I'm sure that still won't be enough for f shart and trayvons mindless supporters. Their idea of closure and justice will be looted tvs, air jordans and liquor stores, and the entire state of Florida being burnt to the ground.