What evidence does the prosecution have?

[tehcloser]

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?

I didn't say GZ did it......only that that example would be illegal. Do you mind quoting the statute that shows chasing someone is legal and that way I might have a better idea where to find one stating underwhat circumstances it would be illegal.

 

[gxm]

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.

"He's got a gun!" or "He's pulled a gun on me, get off the phone and call 911!" IMO would be the first words of someone on the phone who has just had a gun pulled on them.

JMO, OMO, and :moo:

 

[AJ Noiter]

I didn't say GZ did it......only that that example would be illegal. Do you mind quoting the statute that shows chasing someone is legal and that way I might have a better idea where to find one stating underwhat circumstances it would be illegal.

Freedom of movement is a basic human right.

 

[AJ Noiter]

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”.
<snip for length>

That's making an assumption based on no facts that the investigators have. Do you know something they don't?

 

[tehcloser]

Freedom of movement is a basic human right.

Well of course...but that article does not speciffically deal with the issuse of chasing someone which is what we are discussing. It uses a broad brush...specific laws do not. Actually it's not addressing the issue at all................

eta:Freedom of movement, mobility rights or the right to travel is a human right concept that the constitutions of numerous states respect. It asserts that a citizen of a state in which that citizen is present has the liberty to travel, reside in, and/or work in any part of the state where one pleases within the limits of respect for the liberty and rights of others,[1] and to leave that state and return at any time.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement"]Freedom of movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


Totally different.

 

[marlame]

That's making an assumption based on no facts that the investigators have. Do you know something they don't?

:moo:

 

[LambChop]

Freedom of movement is a basic human right.

As long as you are not interferring with the "basic" rights of others. Rights also have responsibilities attached to them. jmo

 

[LynnM]

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.

I respect your opinion. For my part, I just can't see Trayvon lying in wait to sucker punch Zimmerman when he was talking on the phone to his friend. It seems more likely that physical part of the encounter started with Zimmerman stopping Trayvon from moving on when he encountered him the second time. To me Zimmerman's assertion that he was attacked by Trayvon would be the leap of faith.

I think in part my perspective comes from working with offenders (I did program evaluation for the prison system and nonprofits working in it for a number of years; also helped create a program and served on the board). I'm used to hearing offenders in trouble tell stories that explain why what they did that appeared unlawful really wasn't. It's not that I don't think people who are charged with a crime are always guilty. Of course some aren't and we all know that there have been wrongful convictions. But I probably give less weight to the story especially when I see what seems to me to be embellishments (like GZ's story of Trayvon circling his car when he never said so to the dispatcher)

 

[marlame]

Freedom of movement is a basic human right.

Yes it is... but the courts have widely ruled that “freedom of movement may not be used to impair the individual rights of others.”

 

[AngelWings444]

duplicate post

 

[AngelWings444]

"He's got a gun!" or "He's pulled a gun on me, get off the phone and call 911!" IMO would be the first words of someone on the phone who has just had a gun pulled on them.

JMO, OMO, and :moo:

Sometimes, when you are in fear for your life, you freeze, can't move, can't do anything. Just because some "think" they would do something different, unless you are confronted with the SAME circumstances, you have no clue how you will react.

I fought off my attacker. Battered, bruised, scratched and clawed him. He had many, many wounds, as did I. If I was faced with the same circumstances, I might not react the same way, I did in the prior experience. Not that I will ever be in that situation again.

It's not the movies.

JMO

 

[LC446]

Freedom of movement is a basic human right.

Exactly, however you cannot use this premise to defend GZ and then criticize Trayvon for not getting home quick enough as you did earlier in the thread. He can walk slowly and had a right to be where he was. If you're going to apply this forgiveness to GZ then you must do the same for the victim, Trayvon.

 

[marlame]

I respect your opinion. For my part, I just can't see Trayvon lying in wait to sucker punch Zimmerman when he was talking on the phone to his friend. It seems more likely that physical part of the encounter started with Zimmerman stopping Trayvon from moving on when he encountered him the second time. To me Zimmerman's assertion that he was attacked by Trayvon would be the leap of faith.

I think in part my perspective comes from working with offenders (I did program evaluation for the prison system and nonprofits working in it for a number of years; also helped create a program and served on the board). I'm used to hearing offenders in trouble tell stories that explain why what they did that appeared unlawful really wasn't. It's not that I don't think people who are charged with a crime are always guilty. Of course some aren't and we all know that there have been wrongful convictions. But I probably give less weight to the story especially when I see what seems to me to be embellishments (like GZ's story of Trayvon circling his car when he never said so to the dispatcher)

:thumb: Great post!

:wagon:

 

[suspicious1]

Exactly, however you cannot use this premise to defend GZ and then criticize Trayvon for not getting home quick enough as you did earlier in the thread. He can walk slowly and had a right to be where he was. If you're going to apply this forgiveness to GZ then you must do the same for the victim, Trayvon.

I totally agree.

 

[gxm]

Sometimes, when you are in fear for your life, you freeze, can't move, can't do anything. Just because some "think" they would do something different, unless you are confronted with the SAME circumstances, you have no clue how you will react.

I fought off my attacker. Battered, bruised, scratched and clawed him. He had many, many wounds, as did I. If I was faced with the same circumstances, I might not react the same way, I did in the prior experience. Not that I will ever be in that situation again.

It's not the movies.

JMO

But TM didn't freeze. According to the gf, he spoke first and said "Why are you following me?" If, as it has been speculated, GZ had drawn his gun on TM, don't you think his words would have been "Why are you pointing a gun at me?"

 

[AJ Noiter]

As long as you are not interferring with the "basic" rights of others. Rights also have responsibilities attached to them. jmo

I don't see how the act of chasing someone would deprive anyone of any rights. Detaining them? Sure. Chasing? Not a chance.

 

[AJ Noiter]

Exactly, however you cannot use this premise to defend GZ and then criticize Trayvon for not getting home quick enough as you did earlier in the thread. He can walk slowly and had a right to be where he was. If you're going to apply this forgiveness to GZ then you must do the same for the victim, Trayvon.

Actually, I think I can, based on my previous words. I stated that if Mr. Martin WANTED to he could've made it home in the amount of time given. That doesn't say he could not or that he MUST.

Edit: Also, it wasn't me that played the "he was just trying to get home" card. He had every right to make it home, but based on the facts it's fair to say he wasn't on his way home.

 

[LynnM]

Actually, I think I can, based on my previous words. I stated that if Mr. Martin WANTED to he could've made it home in the amount of time given. That doesn't say he could not or that he MUST.

But you drew the inference that since he didn't, it was likely that he was waiting to attack Zimmerman. If Martin not hurrying home was irrelevant to the case, there would have been no reason to bring it up.

 

[LynnM]

But TM didn't freeze. According to the gf, he spoke first and said "Why are you following me?" If, as it has been speculated, GZ had drawn his gun on TM, don't you think his words would have been "Why are you pointing a gun at me?"

I agree with you. I think that if Trayvon had seen the gun while he was still on the phone he would have said something to her. That's why I don't think the gun was visible to him at that point.

 

[AJ Noiter]

Well of course...but that article does not speciffically deal with the issuse of chasing someone which is what we are discussing. It uses a broad brush...specific laws do not. Actually it's not addressing the issue at all................

eta:Freedom of movement, mobility rights or the right to travel is a human right concept that the constitutions of numerous states respect. It asserts that a citizen of a state in which that citizen is present has the liberty to travel, reside in, and/or work in any part of the state where one pleases within the limits of respect for the liberty and rights of others,[1] and to leave that state and return at any time.

Freedom of movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Totally different.

That was why I asked you if you had any specific statutes. As far as I'm aware, something is legal until a law says it's not. Again, do you have any statutes?