What evidence does the prosecution have?

[marlame]

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

Chasing someone could reasonably cause them to fear for their life. I know if someone was chasing or even following me I would be scared. IMO~ Chasing someone rises to the level of threatening behavior or assaultive conduct. I see it as a crime of intentionally or knowingly putting another person in fear of imminent bodily injury and is most definately a deprivation of someones rights. At the very least it is harrassment.

JMHO~

 

[AJ Noiter]

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.

I don't recall my exact words, but I do believe I stated something along the lines of "no one knows who attacked who" and only stated that it was POSSIBLE that Mr. Martin attacked Mr. Zimmerman. Just as it's POSSIBLE that Mr. Zimmerman attacked Mr. Martin. I think you might have read a bit too deeply into what I was saying.

 

[MaryAnn]

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

I would be petrified if some stranger started chasing me for no apparent reason. My first instinct would be to start walking faster or even run. Chasing someone to the point of scaring them half to death isn't a violation of their rights? It's called stalking!

 

[AJ Noiter]

Chasing someone could reasonably cause them to fear for their life. I know if someone was chasing or even following me I would be scared. IMO~ Chasing someone rises to the level of threatening behavior or assaultive conduct. I see it as a crime of intentionally or knowingly putting another person in fear of imminent bodily injury and is most definately a deprivation of someones rights. At the very least it is harrassment.

JMHO~

You can not chase someone who is not already running. Why would they be running? That is a separate issue all together. The act of CHASING does not deprive someone of any right.

Edit: Also, just because you THINK something doesn't mean any rights are being violated either. I can sit here in my house all day long and think that YOU are going to come attack me and be fearful that tomorrow I will not wake up from my sleep. See?

 

[RANCH]

I believe that the state needs evidence showing the movements and locations of both GZ and Trayvon that night. If they have any big gaps it could allow reasonable doubt as to whether or not GZ was first aggressor. JMO.

 

[AJ Noiter]

I believe that the state needs evidence showing the movements and locations of both GZ and Trayvon that night. If they have any big gaps it could allow reasonable doubt as to whether or not GZ was first aggressor. JMO.

I'm hoping they have gps coordinates from phones. That would be very helpful.

 

[Gin]

I would be petrified if some stranger started chasing me for no apparent reason. My first instinct would be to start walking faster or even run. Chasing someone to the point of scaring them half to death isn't a violation of their rights? It's called stalking!

I hear you. I don't know if it's an empowered, comfortable intimidating others because one carries a gun thing, or what?

Maybe we need stricter laws. I can't imagine why anyone who acts on their compulsion to chase/follow/stalk thinks that just because they engage in this behavior that makes it acceptable.

 

[marlame]

You can not chase someone who is not already running. Why would they be running? That is a separate issue all together. The act of CHASING does not deprive someone of any right.

Edit: Also, just because you THINK something doesn't mean any rights are being violated either. I can sit here in my house all day long and think that YOU are going to come attack me and be fearful that tomorrow I will not wake up from my sleep. See?

Hmmm....Why would Trayvon be running? Maybe because he was scared of a <modsnip> following him?

The act of CHASING DOES deprive someone of their rights....

Under FL law, chasing is intimidation which is harassment, a criminal offense. GZ broke the law by harassment. And then he shot and killed an innocent child.
:moo:

 

[AJ Noiter]

Hmmm....Why would Trayvon be running? Maybe because he was scared of a lunatic following him?

The act of CHASING DOES deprive someone of their rights....

Under FL law, chasing is intimidation which is harassment, a criminal offense. GZ broke the law by harassment. And then he shot and killed an innocent child.
:moo:

Mind giving the statute number for that? My google searches for someone being locked up for chasing someone else is proving to be fruitless in the US. In Europe there are plenty of cases though.

 

[gxm]

I'm hoping they have gps coordinates from phones. That would be very helpful.

I was wondering the same thing. From what I've found, cell phone GPS is accurate within 328 ft. I'm wondering if that's too much variance for this case.

JMO, OMO, and :moo:

 

[cityslick]

Hmmm....Why would Trayvon be running? Maybe because he was scared of a lunatic following him?

The act of CHASING DOES deprive someone of their rights....

Under FL law, chasing is intimidation which is harassment, a criminal offense. GZ broke the law by harassment. And then he shot and killed an innocent child.
:moo:

He wasn't running, unless you consider running in circles over and over. If he was 380 feet from his doorstep and was running at the point when GZ said to the dispatcher 'he's running', he would of been long gone by the time GZ got off the phone. Or in his house.

 

[cityslick]

Let me ask you a hypothetical question in this context. Suppose for a moment, that there was an encounter between GZ and TM "where the sidewalks meet" along the lines as stated by RZ Sr. after talking to his son AND watching the reenactment w/LE the following day, in which TM gained the upper hand. Suppose TM then DID see GZ draw his gun and took off running, for half a football field's distance, to the area Attorney O'Mara said the body was found in.

Do you think GZ would have been legally justified in chasing him down with his gun drawn and killing him?

I don't, but I think he would of told his GF on the phone that the guy had a gun if he saw it.

 

[grammieto5]

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

confront [k&#601;n&#712;fr&#652;nt]
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:

LOL Yes I know a few people who believe when they are being asked a question they feel as though they are being accused of "something".... Paranoia will Destroya, only in this case it was Trayvon who was
destroyed :-( I believe Trayvon was not confronting/accusing GZ, Trayvon was asking GZ why he was following him. What barely 17 year old kid would not want to know why they are being followed by a grown man?

 

[beach]

I didn't zap any posts because you guys had a good discussion and dialogue going - just on the wrong thread. I did move quite a few over to the SYG thread because we need to be able to find this info again.

Please carry on over there. I truly believe we have to educate ourselves about that law. For better or worse - bad law or good law - THAT is really a HUGE issue no matter what side of the fence you are standing on.

 

[Elley Mae]

AJ, If I may ask, What do you think the prosecution has that we may not know about that will prove their case? curious

 

[AJ Noiter]

AJ, If I may ask, What do you think the prosecution has that we may not know about that will prove their case? curious

I can't really say. At this point all I can think of would be GPS coordinates at various times, but even that could be flawed. I do not see them having a "smoking gun" if that's what you're wondering about.

 

[gxm]

LOL Yes I know a few people who believe when they are being asked a question they feel as though they are being accused of "something".... Paranoia will Destroya, only in this case it was Trayvon who was
destroyed :-( I believe Trayvon was not confronting/accusing GZ, Trayvon was asking GZ why he was following him. What barely 17 year old kid would not want to know why they are being followed by a grown man?

If someone walking in front of me were to turn around and ask why are you following me?, I'd think they were crazy. YMMV.

But back to the GF's alleged statement, according to her TM initiated first (verbal) contact. I'm not saying I believe her recall of the conversation is flawless, but that's her story (as per Crump). TM made the first actual move of engagement by confronting GZ with the question: Why are you following me?

JMO, OMO, and :moo:

 

[MaryAnn]

If someone walking in front of me were to turn around and ask why are you following me?, I'd think they were crazy. YMMV.

But back to the GF's alleged statement, according to her TM initiated first (verbal) contact. I'm not saying I believe her recall of the conversation is flawless, but that's her story (as per Crump). TM made the first actual move of engagement by confronting GZ with the question: Why are you following me?

JMO, OMO, and :moo:

Maybe if GZ had been the first one to initiate who he was NWC and had told TM why he was following him instead of acting like a stalker we might not even be discussing this here right now because at that point Trayvon could have said I'm staying with my Dad's GF at XXXX address and going home. Trayvon would still be alive today. To blame Trayvon for being the first one to speak up doesn't make any sense JMO. If someone were following me and I couldn't get away from them within the time I thought it took to be safe I would ask the same question. I don't think that's crazy?

 

[highflyer]

If someone walking in front of me were to turn around and ask why are you following me?, I'd think they were crazy. YMMV.

But back to the GF's alleged statement, according to her TM initiated first (verbal) contact. I'm not saying I believe her recall of the conversation is flawless, but that's her story (as per Crump). TM made the first actual move of engagement by confronting GZ with the question: Why are you following me?

JMO, OMO, and :moo:

This doesn't make sense. If someone is following you in a car, people especially women call 911 because it is creepy and potentially dangerous. If someone is following you in a mall or out walking and you KNOW they are following you there is a problem. Kids are taught from an early age to be aware of someone following them. Trying to make it out like this is normal is silly. It is not normal behavior. It's sick and scary and unnerving behavior. Stranger danger.

 

[AngelWings444]

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 don't think when Trayvon first saw GZ, Trayvon could see the gun. He might have said that very thing after the call was abruptly dropped. I believe GZ had something to do with the lost phone communication. Again, this isn't the movies. You can speculate all you want about would've, should've and could've...you will never know until you are in the same circumstances. JMO