Open Thread on Zimmerman Verdict

[Orogeny]

Just wondering…after reading several posts saying it is NOT illegal to follow someone; maybe that is not so correct. Imagine you are alone on your route home, a dark wintry night (say 6:30p.m.), you turn around and see a person behind you, turn at the corner and sure enough, the person is still behind you. Okay, you keep on going but cross to the other side of the street and glance behind you. The other person crosses also and has gotten a little closer. So you step it up a bit and maintain a faster pace for a few minutes. Turn around, same person, now closer. Are we saying that it is legal to pursue a person as long as you don’t catch up? I think it could be rather frightening and if that is the intent - to frighten - then would that not be an illegal act?

And you know intent exactly how?

Peace

Tim

 

[SamH]

Just wondering…after reading several posts saying it is NOT illegal to follow someone; maybe that is not so correct. Imagine you are alone on your route home, a dark wintry night (say 6:30p.m.), you turn around and see a person behind you, turn at the corner and sure enough, the person is still behind you. Okay, you keep on going but cross to the other side of the street and glance behind you. The other person crosses also and has gotten a little closer. So you step it up a bit and maintain a faster pace for a few minutes. Turn around, same person, now closer. Are we saying that it is legal to pursue a person as long as you don’t catch up? I think it could be rather frightening and if that is the intent - to frighten - then would that not be an illegal act?

No.

How about person that is walking across lawns and looking in windows in a neighborhood known for break ins during the night?

 

[Cider]

Just wondering…after reading several posts saying it is NOT illegal to follow someone; maybe that is not so correct. Imagine you are alone on your route home, a dark wintry night (say 6:30p.m.), you turn around and see a person behind you, turn at the corner and sure enough, the person is still behind you. Okay, you keep on going but cross to the other side of the street and glance behind you. The other person crosses also and has gotten a little closer. So you step it up a bit and maintain a faster pace for a few minutes. Turn around, same person, now closer. Are we saying that it is legal to pursue a person as long as you don’t catch up? I think it could be rather frightening and if that is the intent - to frighten - then would that not be an illegal act?

Quote the penal code section for the offense of following someone, if you can find it. I’m not aware of there being one. If there is, I’d like to know though. I’d think that the state would have charged him with it, if it was illegal. Heck they tried to charge him with criminal child abuse they were so desperate.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Interesting. Are you saying that someone pinned to the ground, screaming for help and unable to put up an attack is still a threat?

That is for a jury to decide. Picture yourself as a woman who is attacked and you get the advantage. The person is still struggling-- what are their intentions if you let them up? You have the advantage now, you can’t read the other persons mind, what risk are you willing to take in giving up that advantage? Were you lucky in getting the advantage, and don’t think you could regain it? Are their screams just a ploy? How fast will others get on the scene? Perhaps you continue until there are third party witnesses?

Personally maybe I’d yell ‘freeze now and it stops’. They freeze, we have a discussion on what’s going on. But I’m not a fighter, my reactions are pretty slow in that area, giving up the advantage would be a huge risk for me with an opponent of comparable size or any skill.

Would a reasonable person in the same circmustances believe there was an imminent threat of serious bodily harm to themselves? again, that will be the juries call and what you’d have to live with.

 

[LisaA]

It’s possible that the court in being kind to some offenders and in this case, both Trayvon and Zimmerman may have done a disservice. With the kind of rap sheet Zimmerman has, even if he wasn’t convicted for those crimes, his father’s occupation being a low-level judge, George Zimmerman may have gotten away with what he was charged with per knowing the system. It’s not an angle that is mentioned but perhaps he should not have been able to pass a background check for a Conceal and Carry permit if he would have had a conviction on his record. We can say he didn’t do anything illegal but there is plenty to question about his conduct.

BroomWagon I generally find your posts well thought out and thoughtful but you seem determined to convict Zimmerman despite all of the evidence to the contrary. Why is that? What is it about Zimmerman that you show such animus toward him?

As to GZ’s background that you keep bringing up, not only is it irrelevant but you only bring up some pejorative incidents from the distant past, totally ignoring the public service, the volunteering, the support for a black homeless man who was beaten by a cop’s son.

Are you aware of the qualifications for Concealed Carry? Thanks to the Obama Administration these classes are about as easy to get into as a Justin Bieber concert. There is a HUGE demand for them and the background check is extensive. The kind of charges in his background are neither particularly interesting nor significant. How many angry soon to be ex lovers make specious claims about their former true love?

I think if you want to make a point, you have to look at all of the facts and if you’re bringing up GZ’s past, don’t ignore the positive actions in order to frame a narrative that seems to fit your preconceived idea about the guy.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

He gets the benefit of the doubt, though he is dead and it won’t do him a lot of good.
As far as trials go, there has to be enough proof to reasonably show that Zimmerman was defending himself as he claimed he was.

The case was pretty much a slam dunk, when decided on the evidence.
In the country racially charged along the Holder/Obama fault lines, ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ is not necessary for proof, so Zimmerman stands condemned among the Obama electorate for sure.

That is good news for the Democrats. It is not as if they can run on successful foreign policy or a good news economy. If they were not winning the race-baiting campaign, there would be no good news at all for them.
To win elections though, race baiting will suffice.

So take heart. Martin did not die in vain. Four more years of Democratic misrule await.
Holder for President!!

Love it…

Lisa

 

[BroomWagon]

It’s also dark and rainy out, how heavy the rain, I don’t know but it might not be easy to have one’s bearing about them and think, “here I am on concrete, I can’t knock my opponents head on the concrete”, a person is probably just trying to survive. Also, the facts of it may be that “coincidentally” the two arrived at a position where it just happens to be the part that is over the concrete just happens to be the upper torso or even just above the neck of Zimmerman. I don’t think they are both fighting wholly on top of the sidewalk.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Interesting. Are you saying that someone pinned to the ground, screaming for help and unable to put up an attack is still a threat?

However, you may have hit on something the jury pondered. Even if Zimmerman had started the conflict, did those screams for (was it 40 seconds?) clearly indicate he was trying to withdraw from the fight and was no longer a threat? Which would have turned Martin into the aggressor - continuing the fight even after the opponent was clearly trying to withdraw.

I wouldn’t have seen it that way. But maybe the jury did.

 

[Dawnia]

Assuming you don’t know the meaning of the words “condoning” and “murder,” then yes. I also traded my cow for some magic beans earlier today, ate an apple that made me fall into a deep sleep,only to be awakened with a kiss from prince (made even more awkward when he found out I was a dude), and flew to work today on the back of Falcor from the Neverending Story to avoid traffic.

Yes, all true.

 

[styrgwillidar]

It’s also dark and rainy out, how heavy the rain, I don’t know but it might not be easy to have one’s bearing about them and think, “here I am on concrete, I can’t knock my opponents head on the concrete”, a person is probably just trying to survive. Also, the facts of it may be that “coincidentally” the two arrived at a position where it just happens to be the part that is over the concrete just happens to be the upper torso or even just above the neck of Zimmerman. I don’t think they are both fighting wholly on top of the sidewalk.

Agreed, I don’t think Martin dragged Zimmerman to the concrete. One of those twists of fate, coincidence. They happened to be at the sidewalk because it happened to be where Zimmerman was located, and as fate or luck would have it, they ended up on there instead of the grass.

 

[Tucker_R]

Or maybe tm is/was a thug ? ( Since assuming seems to be ok ).

No, he could have went for his gun to detain TM, and TM could have seen it as a threat for his life. Why would TM risk life in jail by beating GZ’s head into into the ground? Surly TM must have felt threatened.

 

[Joe_5859]

Well they are sold to the public by the media and by special interest groups to further their own cause. Look at Obama, the verdict came down and he said we should respect it and then immediately talked about tighter gun control. They will use anything they can to further their bigger plan.

I thought I heard that Obama was pursuing federal charges. Is that no longer the case?

 

[BroomWagon]

BroomWagon I generally find your posts well thought out and thoughtful but you seem determined to convict Zimmerman despite all of the evidence to the contrary. Why is that? What is it about Zimmerman that you show such animus toward him?

As to GZ’s background that you keep bringing up, not only is it irrelevant but you only bring up some pejorative incidents from the distant past, totally ignoring the public service, the volunteering, the support for a black homeless man who was beaten by a cop’s son.

Are you aware of the qualifications for Concealed Carry? Thanks to the Obama Administration these classes are about as easy to get into as a Justin Bieber concert. There is a HUGE demand for them and the background check is extensive. The kind of charges in his background are neither particularly interesting nor significant. How many angry soon to be ex lovers make specious claims about their former true love?

I think if you want to make a point, you have to look at all of the facts and if you’re bringing up GZ’s past, don’t ignore the positive actions in order to frame a narrative that seems to fit your preconceived idea about the guy.

Lisa

This is a forum for discussion. I am sorry a full discussion of the issue seems to offend you and you feel that some subject matter should not be mentioned.

A lot of us have seen domestic abuse, it is common.

Zimmerman had been charged with domestic violence and shoving a police officer. These are pretty serious offenses. There are 1300 plus posts here, there might be 5 - 10 that mention Zimmerman’s prior brushes with the law. I am sorry, you find this offensive. Perhaps we can add on a rule to the forum rules! forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=116150

Domestic Abuse though common, is pretty horrendous, if an unproved incident of pounding someone’s head into the pavement is mentioned 500 times in this thread or however many times it is, I find it difficult to understand why you would find mentioning this other objectionable.

I look at this as neutral, the right verdict for the circumstances probably saw justice served, but I happen to hear someone mention on the radio this morning, maybe the police had treated Trayvon leniently with past run-ins, when I heard that, it made me think possibly the same could be said about Zimmerman.

Again, perhaps you feel the rules of this forum have been violated or should be amended whereas this past behavior by Zimmerman should not be discussed for some reason.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=116150

 

[Cider]

I thought I heard that Obama was pursuing federal charges. Is that no longer the case?

LOL good point, so we should respect the verdict at the same time he calls for further investigation into the civil right abuse of not submitting to having your head bashed in.

 

[styrgwillidar]

This is a forum for discussion. I am sorry a full discussion of the issue seems to offend you and you feel that some subject matter should not be mentioned.

A lot of us have seen domestic abuse, it is common.

Zimmerman had been charged with domestic violence and shoving a police officer. These are pretty serious offenses. There are 1300 plus posts here, there might be 5 - 10 that mention Zimmerman’s prior brushes with the law. I am sorry, you find this offensive. Perhaps we can add on a rule to the forum rules! forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=116150

Domestic Abuse though common, is pretty horrendous, if an unproved incident of pounding someone’s head into the pavement is mentioned 500 times in this thread or however many times it is, I find it difficult to understand why you would find mentioning this other objectionable.

I look at this as neutral, the right verdict for the circumstances probably saw justice served, but I happen to hear someone mention on the radio this morning, maybe the police had treated Trayvon leniently with past run-ins, when I heard that, it made me think possibly the same could be said about Zimmerman.

Again, perhaps you feel the rules of this forum have been violated or should be amended whereas this past behavior by Zimmerman should not be discussed for some reason.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=116150

Well, forgive me intruding a bit, but I think in discussing the verdict itself, it would be reasonable to constrain ourselves to the evidence available to the jury.

If we’re talking bigger picture, our opinios of what we think happened in the actual incident apart from the verdict than I don’t see problem with bringing in the prior history/records of both parties.

But to be fair, if you’re going to consider prior actions of one party you should bring up and account for the prior record of the other.

just my .02 on a thread that will probably be closing soon since its well over 1,000 post.

 

[livingwordunity]

LOL good point, so we should respect the verdict at the same time he calls for further investigation into the civil right abuse of not submitting to having your head bashed in.

What kind of justice system is it when someone keeps getting tried until the result appeases a lynch mob?

 

[LisaA]

This is a forum for discussion. I am sorry a full discussion of the issue seems to offend you and you feel that some subject matter should not be mentioned.

A lot of us have seen domestic abuse, it is common.

Zimmerman had been charged with domestic violence and shoving a police officer. These are pretty serious offenses. There are 1300 plus posts here, there might be 5 - 10 that mention Zimmerman’s prior brushes with the law. I am sorry, you find this offensive. Perhaps we can add on a rule to the forum rules! forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=116150

Domestic Abuse though common, is pretty horrendous, if an unproved incident of pounding someone’s head into the pavement is mentioned 500 times in this thread or however many times it is, I find it difficult to understand why you would find mentioning this other objectionable.

I look at this as neutral, the right verdict for the circumstances probably saw justice served, but I happen to hear someone mention on the radio this morning, maybe the police had treated Trayvon leniently with past run-ins, when I heard that, it made me think possibly the same could be said about Zimmerman.

Again, perhaps you feel the rules of this forum have been violated or should be amended whereas this past behavior by Zimmerman should not be discussed for some reason.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=116150

No I leave the rules up to the mods and my only point was that you seem to be grasping for ANYTHING that would make Zimmerman look bad. You clearly have a severe animus toward him and when the evidence doesn’t comport with Zimmerman as a racist gone toting cop wannabe then you pull out something about his father (who knew…I sure didn’t) his past altercations, and suggest he shouldn’t have qualified for a concealed carry.

I’m not offended, just curious. I like logic and reasoning and facts to consider before drawing a conclusion and can’t understand your perspective. I’m open minded enough to consider other sides of the argument if there is some compelling evidence.

I just don’t understand how GZ’s distant past trumps the more current experience and the many sources of information indicating that while he may have been overzealous in reporting Martin, it was not out of any kind of racism or malice.

BTW this is what the one juror reported during her interview, that GZ may have been misguided but he wasn’t looking for a fight or racially profiling Martin.

I guess we agree to disagree

Lisa

 

[styrgwillidar]

… but I happen to hear someone mention on the radio this morning, maybe the police had treated Trayvon leniently with past run-ins, when I heard that, it made me think possibly the same could be said about Zimmerman.

…

Sorry, I don’t know the details of Zimmerman’s prior arrests. But I think this is the leniency thing being referred to,

The issue with Travyon is that the school he attended was trying to drive down the delinquency and arrest rates statistics for students. The chiefs methodology was to stop turning over students suspected of criminal offenses to the police, and have the school administer disciplinary measures instead. Trayvon was caught on surveillance drawing graffiti, when they searched his bag for the marker, they found stolen property from a burglary which had occurred about a half mile from the school and a ‘burglary tool’ (a screwdriver). He stated a friend had given him the property.

He also got caught with marijuana which was why he was suspended and sent to live with his Dad.

 

[livingwordunity]

But to be fair, if you’re going to consider prior actions of one party you should bring up and account for the prior record of the other.

And how the autopsy revealed that THC (marijuana) was in TM’s body at the time if all the negatives are to be considered on both sides.

 

[BroomWagon]

Well, forgive me intruding a bit, but I think in discussing the verdict itself, it would be reasonable to constrain ourselves to the evidence available to the jury.

If we’re talking bigger picture, our opinios of what we think happened in the actual incident apart from the verdict than I don’t see problem with bringing in the prior history/records of both parties.

But to be fair, if you’re going to consider prior actions of one party you should bring up and account for the prior record of the other.

just my .02 on a thread that will probably be closing soon since its well over 1,000 post.

But people have brought up Trayvon’s past.

Also, if a Concealed Carry permit is given to people based on a background check which is a part of this story, I think it is very much at the heart of the matter that George Zimmerman got a gun despite having some very serious charges levelled against him in the past. It could have had a big effect on this situation. Those charges reflect very negatively on him as a human being.

But maybe you are right, it should not be brought up, we just might not have someone dead!