What evidence does the prosecution have?

[AJ Noiter]

That's true but I don't think that is the point being made. No one is saying that Zimmerman violated a law by not identifying himself. But if we are going to try to reconstruct what happened, it's a meaningful point that goes to his state of mind.

If as a neighborhood watch volunteer he wanted to protect the neighborhood and he didn't know whether Trayvon belonged there, then the simplest way to find out would have been to ask him from the safety of his car, early on, and he didn't do that. According to the friend on the phone, he didn't answer Trayvon's question as to why he was following him. Why not? No, of course there is no law that says he should but in the first opportunity lost, he might have been able to reassure himself that all was well and continue to Target. In the second opportunity he might have defused a situation in which both people were clearly distrustful of each other.

I believe this is because he had already decided, in his mind, that just as he told the dispatcher, Trayvon was up to no good and there was no reason to consider that he was someone who belonged there minding his own business let alone think that he himself might appear to be a bad guy to Trayvon. In addition, his words about *advertiser censored**holes and punks show some anger IMO.

I believe this mindset that Trayvon was a criminal and his anger at others who 'always get away' set the stage for the deadly encounter. I believe that he was determined, not to see where Trayvon was, but to detain him to prevent him from getting away before law enforcement came. And I believe the detention was an illegal act.

What are your thoughts about why he failed to identify himself as neighborhood watch volunteer ( he need not have said his name)?

I could say that my opinion of him not identifying himself would be that he was more concerned about this individual harming someone or someone else's property. The fact that he didn't identify himself plays no bearing unless you're convinced of his guilt, and then you're just searching for reasons to justify your own conviction.

 

[AJ Noiter]

There is a difference. GZ is charged with the murder of Trayvon. He is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. According to LE and the charging documents, Trayvon is the victim.

Trayvon is not charge with anything. GZ is. Trying to make him the criminal, and GZ the victim, on this forum, doesn't sit well with some, for obvious reasons, one being, this is a victim friendly forum.

JMO

We don't know who the 'victim' was because it can't be factually stated. According to the charging documents there's probable cause for the arrest... [ame="http://video.foxnews.com/v/1585842879001/alan-dershowitz-blasts-case-against-george-zimmerman"]oh wait[/ame].

Source of video chosen by google, not me.
Not sure why the video isn't working, here's the URL: video.foxnews.com/v/1585842879001/alan-dershowitz-blasts-case-against-george-zimmerman

 

[AJ Noiter]

But yet you feel Trayvon asking GZ "why are you following me" a confrontation????

Confronted and assaulted are two different things. I have stated that had Mr. Zimmerman asked his question first HE would have confronted Mr. Martin. Yes, I really did say that

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

If you believe GZ, all I can say is really look at his character, his history and his own words. He is a paranoid, a liar, a weak man, and a failure in everything he attempted up until February 26, 2012. He just has somehow managed to get people to talk him out of situations that he creates. ALL OF THE ABOVE: IMO!!!

His failures began in 2005 and has since to recover or become a productive member of society...he's a wanna be everything and master of nothing...:maddening:

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

We don't know who the 'victim' was because it can't be factually stated. According to the charging documents there's probable cause for the arrest...

But the victim TM, caused the defendant, GZ to bring that probable cause, Issue Capias for GZ to be arrested on a murder 2 charge..

So by that document alone, The State of Florida stands for the victim TM...

Playing semantics doesn't bring the matter of right, wrong or indiffent..it is what it is and for all intents and purposes it's GZ's freedom on the line which makes him the defendant for the cause of action against TM...

 

[Just K]

I'd be willing to bet, he didn't get any scholarships, based on academic or athletic achievements, either. Honestly, I bet his failures began back in High School, in Manassas, as he left the Catholic School System and went into the Public High School. Something happened in Manassass before he moved to Florida...we are just not privy to what that something is, yet.

 

[LynnM]

I could say that my opinion of him not identifying himself would be that he was more concerned about this individual harming someone or someone else's property. The fact that he didn't identify himself plays no bearing unless you're convinced of his guilt, and then you're just searching for reasons to justify your own conviction.

It sounds like we are in agreement then that GZ's focus was on Trayvon being a criminal rather than finding out if Trayvon was neighbor or guest of a neighborhood.

I do think it has a bearing and I've explained why so obviously we are in disagreement there.

I hope you are not saying that I have formed my opinion that GZ is guilty in the absence of my own careful consideration of the evidence. It may not be what you have concluded based on your interpretation of the evidence we have to date but I don't believe that there is any less objectivity on my part.

 

[grammieto5]

Confronted and assaulted are two different things. I have stated that had Mr. Zimmerman asked his question first HE would have confronted Mr. Martin. Yes, I really did say that

I fail to see where asking a question is considered confronting someone.

 

[AJ Noiter]

It sounds like we are in agreement then that GZ's focus was on Trayvon being a criminal rather than finding out if Trayvon was neighbor or guest of a neighborhood.

I do think it has a bearing and I've explained why so obviously we are in disagreement there.

I hope you are not saying that I have formed my opinion that GZ is guilty in the absence of my own careful consideration of the evidence. It may not be what you have concluded based on your interpretation of the evidence we have to date but I don't believe that there is any less objectivity on my part.

I never stated he wasn't focused on the young man. I do not, however, see the jump from "this guy is really suspicious, he could be one of the guys doing the break-ins" to "ZOMG I MUST KILL HIM NOW!" as many are proclaiming.

 

[RANCH]

I have a question. I've seen posts suggesting that GZ stalked and illegally detained Trayvon. If the state has evidence showing that these illegal acts occurred, why didn't they charge GZ with these crimes?

 

[Gin]

I hate to say it but this is starting to become a circular argument between the two of us. Chasing someone is not an illegal action*, even if there were evidence to say he WAS chasing - as far as I know he was just "following." Profiling someone as a criminal is not illegal. You've proven my point. There is nothing to state who assaulted who, so we can not state factually that Mr. Martin was an "innocent teenager." Or, if we can, then we can also state "factually" that Mr. Zimmerman was just an "innocent man." It goes both ways.

* - I "chase" people without a real reason 3 times a week. There is a riverwalk here that stretches for miles and many mornings you'll find, what I estimate to be, marathon runners running the riverwalk. I try to keep up with them for no real reason.

JMO--BBM
And legal it might be, but I wouldn't assume that all of the folks that are "chased" find it ok, or normal. It's quite possible some find it rather creepy.

 

[AJ Noiter]

[/B]

JMO--BBM
And legal it might be, but I wouldn't assume that all of the folks that are "chased" find it ok, or normal. It's quite possible some find it rather creepy.

Most of them, if they noticed me, probably wouldn't realize that I am chasing them specifically. It's not like I watch them without blinking or turning my head. I listen to my iPod while looking around, and on occasion I will look up to make sure I'm maintaining a distance from the person I'm "chasing." It's also not like I'm right on their heals, I keep a good distance of 20ft or so.

 

[tehcloser]

But.......do you do that after you have called LE and said they look suspicious?

eta......I guess I'm trying to figure out how pacing yourself with another runner equates to what GZ did.

 

[AJ Noiter]

But.......do you do that after you have called LE and said they look suspicious?

eta......I guess I'm trying to equate how pacing yourself with another runner equates to what GZ did.

Do we have proof that states he was chasing someone and not just following? If we do I haven't seen it. My point was that even if he were chasing someone, which we do not know, it's not illegal.

 

[LynnM]

I never stated he wasn't focused on the young man. I do not, however, see the jump from "this guy is really suspicious, he could be one of the guys doing the break-ins" to "ZOMG I MUST KILL HIM NOW!" as many are proclaiming.

Well you haven't heard me proclaiming any such thing. I don't think Zimmerman is a monster or a cold blooded killer. I think he had some issues with anger and impulse control (and yes I do know that the evidence for that is old). I think he has self-esteem issues and I think that he was anxious for praise and approval from others. I think that he hoped his volunteer work as a neighbor watchman would bring about the approval of his neighbors and I think that he had been getting some of that but at the same time, he wasn't able to be really 'heroic' and stop a crime in progress and have the offender apprehended. I think as this encounter went on, his focus narrowed to a desire to keeping Trayvon from getting away and that led to his attempting to detain him illegally with a fight ensuing. There is such a short window of time between the loud voices reported and the shooting that I am very skeptical that Zimmerman had time to conclude that Trayvon was going to kill him during their scuffle. I think he continued to focus on the idea that he had to stop this dangerous criminal and he shot him when he thought that he was losing the fight and Trayvon might get away.

Obviously we need to see/hear the prosecution's evidence and any evidence introduced by the defense in this case before drawing final conclusions but to me, the scenario I've outlined fits what we know.

 

[tehcloser]

Do we have proof that states he was chasing someone and not just following? If we do I haven't seen it. My point was that even if he were chasing someone, which we do not know, it's not illegal.

I guess it might depend on WHY you were chasing/following them as to whether it would be illegal or not. The example you gave...not illeagal. Chasing/following someone because you intend to stop them at all costs while possibly having your weapon drawn....illeagal.

 

[AJ Noiter]

Well you haven't heard me proclaiming any such thing. I don't think Zimmerman is a monster or a cold blooded killer. I think he had some issues with anger and impulse control (and yes I do know that the evidence for that is old). I think he has self-esteem issues and I think that he was anxious for praise and approval from others. I think that he hoped his volunteer work as a neighbor watchman would bring about the approval of his neighbors and I think that he had been getting some of that but at the same time, he wasn't able to be really 'heroic' and stop a crime in progress and have the offender apprehended. I think as this encounter went on, his focus narrowed to a desire to keeping Trayvon from getting away and that led to his attempting to detain him illegally with a fight ensuing. There is such a short window of time between the loud voices reported and the shooting that I am very skeptical that Zimmerman had time to conclude that Trayvon was going to kill him during their scuffle. I think he continued to focus on the idea that he had to stop this dangerous criminal and he shot him when he thought that he was losing the fight and Trayvon might get away.

Obviously we need to see/hear the prosecution's evidence and any evidence introduced by the defense in this case before drawing final conclusions but to me, the scenario I've outlined fits what we know.

I can agree with your assertion, based on lack of information on my own part, until the bold portion. I think once we make the assumption that he was trying to detain anyone we're taking a leap of faith. As for the amount of time on screaming, I've read others state that the screaming was going on for 45 seconds. I think that would be enough time to make such a determination by Mr. Zimmerman if his story is true, again, I haven't seen any evidence that states otherwise.

 

[AJ Noiter]

I guess it might depend on WHY you were chasing/following them as to whether it would be illegal or not. The example you gave...not illeagal. Chasing/following someone because you intend to stop them at all costs while possibly having your weapon drawn....illeagal.

Would you mind quoting the statute that makes it illegal to chase someone at any time? Also, it's quite speculative to state that he had his weapon drawn at this time. My question is, why didn't Mr. Martin state to his girlfriend that Mr. Zimmerman had pulled a weapon if it were out at this time?

Edit: Now, I understand that not everyone is like me but if someone is following me or trying to get my attention the first thing I do is look at their hands.

 

[gxm]

I fail to see where asking a question is considered confronting someone.

IMO, the commenter is using this definition of the word:

confront [kənˈfrʌnt]
vb (tr)
1. (usually foll by with) to present or face (with something), esp in order to accuse or criticize


BBM. According to GF's testimony, TM made the first verbal contact: Why are you following me? (An accusation formed as a question.)

JMO, OMO, and :moo:

 

[marlame]

Under the statute, in order to be "stalking", it CLEARLY states that it must be done "repeatedly". Since it was not done repeatedly, it was NOT stalking.

In my OPINION GZ following Trayvon was done "repeatedly"...

911 dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
911 dispatcher: OK. We don’t need you to do that.

But GZ didn’t listen…Trayvon’s GF was on the phone with him and heard Trayvon say "why are your following me, …?”

GZ disregarded what he was told by 911 dispatch and AGAIN followed Trayvon…Making this “repeatedly followed”.


IMHO…I conclude GZ exhibited intent to follow Trayvon. He engaged in a “course of conduct” directed at Trayvon that caused enough emotional distress for Trayvon to alert his GF he was being followed and was fearful.

Add that Trayvon had every reason to fear that he may suffer death or great bodily harm (i.e. STALKING). Sadly, Trayvon was 100% right --there was "credible threat" and he is now DEAD. GZ caused Trayvon such great bodily harm that it killed him.

I really do believe GZ’s intent was to make Trayvon fear for his life and this is considered "aggravated stalking". It is my opinion GZ displayed “intent” when he didn‘t identify himself as “neighborhood watch captain”.

Section 784.048. STALKING; DEFINITIONS;
(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 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.