17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #16

[Sensei]

Well don't be surprised if the person you attack defends themselves. You can't hold other people responsible for how you feel, much less attack them for it imo.

You can in fact hold other people responsible for how you feel, if their conduct is such that reasonable and rational people would also feel threatened and intimidated, then the law is going to hold you responsible for the behavior that makes them feel that way...IMO JMHO and stuff.

 

[suzihawk]

Craig Sonner has never defended a client accused in a homicide, but he now represents George Zimmerman, the man at the center of one of the nation's most racially divisive shootings in years.

And Sonner predicts he'll have no problem clearing Zimmerman.

"I believed his story of how he was defending himself," said 47-year-old Sonner, a one-man Altamonte Springs law firm. "I've already got a number of experts lined up to take this one … I don't think we're going to have a problem exonerating George Zimmerman."

Sonner had not paid much attention to the case and all the media reports about it until Zimmerman's father called, asking for help.

"Then George called me," Sonner said.

(snip)


http://articles.orlandosentinel.com..._defense-team-lawrence-o-donnell-wofl-channel

From the few appearances I've seen of Sonner, I think he's in WAY over his head. But, then again, I said that about Baez so...


(I wish we could open and entirely separate thread for the pages upon pages of posts about the dispatcher's instructions re: following and whether or not it's legal, appropriate or wise, etc. Round and round we go)

MOO

 

[Sensei]

Two people are walking to the store. Person number one is 20 feet ahead of person number two. Can person number one call the police and have person number two arrested for stalking? I don't think so. Person number two was simply following person number one.

except that is not what we have here. To make this a valid argument you have to have person number one begin to run to get away from person number two, and alter his course in an effort to get away, then have person number two run after him and alter his course as well....

There can be no argument that GZ was simply following TM because they were both incidentally going in the same direction.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Thank you for the LINK!

"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."

Yep...Trayvon was repeatedly followed. (Even after 911 dispatch told GZ not to follow).

"..."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."

Per Trayvon's girlfriend who was on the phone with him, we know Trayvon was caused substantial emotional distress and was afraid (rightly so, given he was shot and killed for innocently walking in the neighborhood.) Add that...GZ had NO legitimate purpose, it appears GZ's actions meet the definition of Harassment.

Based upon FL Code...GZ was "stalking" Trayvon. :what:
JMHO~

I do not feel that GZ repeatedly followed TM.
Were talking about one incident here,not multiple incidents. JMO.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

except that is not what we have here. To make this a valid argument you have to have person number one begin to run to get away from person number two, and alter his course in an effort to get away, then have person number two run after him and alter his course as well....

There can be no argument that GZ was simply following TM because they were both incidentally going in the same direction.

I was trying to make the point that a single incident of following someone doesn't equal stalking.

 

[Sensei]

I do not feel that GZ repeatedly followed TM.
Were talking about one incident here,not multiple incidents. JMO.

Yet the law does not specifically state multiple incidents....

All that is necessary is for GZ to persist after TM ran and was out of sight, when GZ got out of his vehicle to pursue on foot, after TM made it plain that he was attempting to evade, or get away from him that is a repeated offense IMO

 

[Peliman]

He was already out of the car, and GZ reporting on TM's movements led the dispatcher to question, Are you following him now? in which GZ replied "yes" and then dispatch said, "we don't need you to do that" I have thought that when TM left the road and went to the sidewalk behind the homes that he was trying to shake GZ off cause he was in a vehicle.

I'm curious what people think by listening to the 911 call what GZ's location was when he was told "We don't need you to do that?" Was he in his truck or already behind the building near where the incident occurred?

 

[Gin]

I do not feel that GZ repeatedly followed TM.
Were talking about one incident here,not multiple incidents. JMO.

GZ hit the speed dial to 911, right? Didn't they tell him we don't need you to do that? (Follow the person that GZ has decided to report as "suspicious")

Does GZ ignore 911 and start following again? If so, that's a repeated incident.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Right - I'm glad we agree that Trayvon had a right to defend himself.

Well I believe TM started the fight, and I don't consider that defending himself - my point was that if a person is attacked for following someone, THEY have the right to defend themselves.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Yes we do - he told his girlfriend he felt threatened and she told him to run.

And he told her he was not going to run. Doesn't sound too threatened or scared to me...jmo

 

[HiHater]

Two people are walking to the store. Person number one is 20 feet ahead of person number two. Can person number one call the police and have person number two arrested for stalking? I don't think so. Person number two was simply following person number one.

Stalking, at least from what I understand, is more about what the victim feels. Most crimes are based on criminal intent---but stalking has a lot to do with how the victim perceives the situation.

Example: Calling someone 16 times a day is not a criminal activity and does not mean that the person calling has criminal intent. But if the receiver of those calls feels threatened, then it's probably enough to file stalking charges.

jmo...

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Yet the law does not specifically state multiple incidents....

All that is necessary is for GZ to persist after TM ran and was out of sight, when GZ got out of his vehicle to pursue on foot, after TM made it plain that he was attempting to evade, or get away from him that is a repeated offense IMO

BBM
Yes, persist or continue to follow TM during this incident is one act of following. Hence not repeatedly.

 

[Sensei]

I'm curious what people think by listening to the 911 call what GZ's location was when he was told "We don't need you to do that?" Was he in his truck or already behind the building near where the incident occurred?

Based on the dings I hear and what sounds to be the vehicle doors opening, I believe that he had Just exited the vehicle, and could have been back to it within a few seconds if he had so chosen. IMO JMHO and stuff.

 

[suzihawk]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57403716/friend-of-martin-shooter-id-do-the-same-thing/

Friend of Martin shooter: I'd do the same thing

Somehow I missed that Taafe was also a volunteer of his NW program.

Hmm... very interesting!


Frank Taaffe is his neighbor. Over the last year, they both guarded their subdivision as crime-watch volunteers.


"I more or less patrolled this sector right here (holds up arms), whereas George took care of the entire complex," he said.


He added: "I would see him in the evening doing his patrol and we would wave, and he would walk his Rottweiler through the complex."


"Both looking for the same thing, you and he?" Strassmann asked.


"Yes. And George went above and beyond the call of duty. He was diligent and had a real passion and concern for the safety of all the residents here at Twin Lakes."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57403716/friend-of-martin-shooter-id-do-the-same-thing/

 

[Boytwnmom]

not that it was "malicious" which is not the relevant measure but that he may have had "unlawful" intent in that he may have been determed to prevent TM from "getting away" thus suggesting he had the intent to unlawfully detain him. GZ determined TM was a criminal and called 911 on him and then persued him with his gun after being told not to and after misleading the operator by saying "OK" and after he had expressed his anger that these "a%$holes" always get away and since he had concluded Trayvon was up to no good and on drugs and since he followed him after expressing his concern that "he's running" what would a reasonable person conclude? That he was just following him or that he intended to initiate contact with him and detain him until the police arrived so that this "a&^hole" wouldn't get away like all the others did? I think his actions are very much up for discussion.

Well, then there's the "malicious intent" component. GZ had no malicious intent, he was trying to keep an eye on Trayvon until LE could get there.

That's not malicious. If he were trailing Trayvon hoping to jump him and rob him, or beat him up for thrills, that's malicious.

 

[2goldfish]

But if a person is following you - not touching you or yelling at you - but just following you...what are you defending yourself from? Is it justifiable to make a preemptive strike because you think a person shouldn't be following you? TM was the one who challenged GZ by asking why he was following him.

oh lord, do we all think this is okay to do now??


it is NOT OKAY to just randomly follow people around! it's weird at best!

 

[cityslick]

Stalking, at least from what I understand, is more about what the victim feels. Most crimes are based on criminal intent---but stalking has a lot to do with how the victim perceives the situation.

Example: Calling someone 16 times a day is not a criminal activity and does not mean that the person calling has criminal intent. But if the receiver of those calls feels threatened, then it's probably enough to file stalking charges.

jmo...

Still doesn't answer the question if then can the one who feels threatened go to the callers house and beat them up.

Or if one feels threatened from someone following them, can they wait until that person gets close to them then start wailing on them.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

GZ hit the speed dial to 911, right? Didn't they tell him we don't need you to do that? (Follow the person that GZ has decided to report as "suspicious")

Does GZ ignore 911 and start following again? If so, that's a repeated incident.

I don't know about speed dial, and I don't know if GZ stopped and started anything after the dispatcher suggested that he didn't need to follow. It was one incident. IMO

 

[marlame]

I was trying to make the point that a single incident of following someone doesn't equal stalking.

According to Florida Law it DOES!

Section 784.048. STALKING; DEFINITIONS; PENALTIES. 1997.

(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.


JMHO~

 

[Gin]

I don't know about speed dial, and I don't know if GZ stopped and started anything after the dispatcher suggested that he didn't need to follow. It was one incident. IMO

Just my take, the 911 dispatcher isn't vague. Z had two choices, listen, back off and wait for the police, or start following/stalking again.


I am so glad it's on tape.